The LDS Church recently updated its statement on political neutrality. As reported by the Church News, the updated statement includes a new introduction paragraph, a new conclusion paragraph, and a list of do’s and don’ts that might or might not be changed. You can read the entire statement, as amended, at this Newsroom page, which notes that “this page was updated on June 1, 2023,” but give no details on what has been changed. Maximal untransparency, as usual. It’s up to us to figure out what has changed and why. As one of W&T’s permabloggers asked in our backlist discussion, “What external event prompted these changes?” That’s always a relevant question.
New Introduction
Here’s the new introductory paragraph, mostly fluff.
The work of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, strengthening individuals and families, and caring for those in need. The Church does not seek to elect government officials, support or oppose political parties, or, generally, take sides in global conflicts. The Church is neutral in matters of politics within or between the world’s many nations, lands and peoples. However, as an institution, it reserves the right to address issues it believes have significant moral consequences or that directly affect the mission, teachings or operations of the Church.
The central part of the paragraph seems to respond to the question, “Why doesn’t the Church come out in support of Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine war?” As an increasingly global church, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Church doesn’t “take sides in global conflicts” and tries to stay out of politics “within or between the world’s many nations.” Of course, the statement then adds exceptions that swallow the rule: the Church “reserves the right to address issues it believes have significant moral consequences” (i.e., pretty much everything going on in the world) or “that directly affect the mission, teachings, or operations of the Church” (i.e., pretty much anything else they want to talk about). You wouldn’t think US national defense is a topic the Church would get involved in? Read about the MX missile debate. Bottom line: The Church gets involved in politics whenever it wants to. That would be a more straightforward introductory paragraph: “The Church gets involved in politics whenever it wants to.”
The Conclusion
The new concluding paragraph is much shorter than the introduction:
To navigate the application of these principles of political neutrality and participation in an ever-changing and complex world, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to seek prophetic wisdom and revelation on these matters.
Nothing to see here, really. You may have different opinions on how successfully the leadership obtains “prophetic wisdom and revelation” on the question of how to apply these principles a complex and changing world. The way the leadership utterly failed to reign in and counteract the damaging political statements and activities of Ezra Taft Benson a couple of generations ago makes me think that “too little, too late” is, at best, the leadership response to any political issue or challenge. Likewise for the leadership response to the civil rights movement.
The Rest of It
You can go through the do’s and don’ts list. They are general guidelines that don’t really constrain or limit Church actions. Every statement should contain an asterisk that links to a disclaimer, “… unless we want to.” Thus: “The Church does not advise its members on how to vote … unless we want to.” But, on the whole, the do’s and don’ts are helpful guidelines. I hope the leadership understands that the less they get involved in politics or choose to speak out, the better.
There is still a lingering issue from the prior changes to the LDS political neutrality statement in 2020. Those changes were analyzed in detail in a prior W&T post by hawkgrrrl. At least by 2020, the statements encouraging Latter-day Saints to vote for candidates of good moral character had been dropped. No more suggestions that members should search for candidates with integrity or who are upright and honest. One view of this change is that LDS leaders did not want to diss candidate Trump, who plainly fails to meet that fairly unobjectionable requirement. If most of the leaders are privately supportive of Trump, that makes sense, as does the long delay following the 2020 election before the leadership issued their congratulatory letter to Joe Biden for winning the election. They should have issued that letter four days after the election, when all the responsible networks finally called it for Biden. They would have if they didn’t privately support Trump, this argument goes. [For some LDS, the idea that the leaders have fallen for Trump or are at least carrying his water destroys most of their moral credibility, but that’s a different post.]
But wait, there’s an alternative view. Given that most LDS support Trump, maybe the leaders removed the integrity statements and delayed recognizing President Biden *not* because they favored Trump but because they did not want to alientate the large chunk of the LDS rank and file that have fallen hard for Trump. They didn’t want to lost attendance and tithing revenue from LDS Trumpers who would choose Trump over the Church. Is that 20% of them? 50%? Hard to tell. But this second view makes more sense to me. The leadership, having recognized the LDS parade turned right when the leaders at the front of the parade continued straight, hurried back to the front of the right-leaning LDS parade. They’re not really leading the parade anymore, they’re just trying to stay ahead of the unguided (misguided?) LDS parade so they can pretend they are leading the parade.
So what do you think?
- Are the new paragraphs at the beginning and end of the updated statement helpful?
- Do you think the integrity statements (encouraging members to vote for honest candidates who display integrity) should be put back into the LDS political guidelines?
- Do you have any stories to share about LDS political actions or interventions, either positive or negative?
- What do you think of the new statement, as amended, overall?
Wheat & Tares 
I am neutral on this statement.
Concerning political neutrality, the church should stay out of politics. At the same time it should stand for and defend principles of truth and righteousness. I see church leaders less engaged in doing that. I see an LDS church more cautious about taking bold stands. I can appreciate why. It is risky, both personally and institutionally to offend powerful people. Abinadi is one example. The prophets Nephi and Samuel in the book of Helamen are other examples. Standing in opposition to evil makes one a target. Is the LDS church willing to be a target?
I am curious about the scapegoating of Trump. What makes Trump the conclusively immoral politician? Was Bill Clinton moral? Was Hillary Clinton moral? What about Joe Biden?
George W Bush launched an unnecessary war that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Can one be more immoral than that? Barack Obama authorized drone killings by which women and children were indiscriminately slaughtered by the push of button. Can one be more immoral than that?
All of America’s presidents of my lifetime have supported policies that have enabled the wealthy to profit via collusion and abuse of the law by stripping assets from the weak and the poor. Some, like Biden, intentionally and personally profit in the collusion – millions of dollars flow from foreign interests to the Biden family business. Can one be more immoral than that?
The problem with making Trump the scapegoat for political immorality is it excuses all other politicians and their immorality. They are all flawed and self serving and unless we wake up to that reality we will see our freedom and prosperity further eroded and stolen from us.
And to point, the 2020 presidential election was a fraud. I do not know if the election was stolen from Trump, but I know the process of casting, collecting and reporting votes in 2020 was a farce. If you care about the legitimacy of democracy you would care about having election law that enforced voting integrity.
Before 2020, complaints about the lack of voting integrity were bipartisan. Heading into 2024, you will observe bipartisan concerns about election integrity. So how curious it is that the narrative for the 2020 vote is it was honest and accurate and Trump is seditious for claiming otherwise!
Can we agree that we need greater integrity in our public institutions and all leaders of those institutions need to be held to a high standard of trust? Making scapegoats of some leaders while excusing the improprieties of the others means the people are still being cheated even if the “worse bad guy” got what he deserved.
Remember the deceit of the Pharisees. They defended themselves as righteous by constantly and persistently labeling others as unrighteous. The Pharisee were hypocrites. We need to be wise to the hypocrites of our society. There are many and we especially find them in politics – individuals quick to condemn others as unclean all while they are also unclean. We ought not to be fooled by the game of “good guys” vs “bad guys”, by which we assume the opposition to the “bad guys” are the good people.
This First Presidency letter was read from the pulpit Sunday. It’s contrary to some of the things you are saying.
Political Participation, Voting, and the Political Neutrality of the Church
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Citizens of the United States have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects their communities and nation today and in the future. We urge Latter-day Saints to be active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaged in civic affairs, always demonstrating Christlike love and civility in political discourse.
We urge you to spend the time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you will be considering. Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without carefully study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). Information on candidates is available through the internet, debates, and other sources.
While the Church affirms its institutional neutrality regarding political parties and issues, it may occasionally post information about particular issues that directly affect the mission, teachings, or operations of the Church or that Church leaders believe are essential to preserving democracy or the essential functioning of the United States Constitution.
Political choices and affiliations should not be the subject of any teaching or advocating in Church settings. Leaders ensure that Church meetings focus on our Heavenly Father, our Savior, and the gospel.
For more information see newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org and General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 38.8.30″
It’s always dangerous to compare leaders to Hitler and countries to Nazi Germany. But if the Church is unwilling to condemn Putin and Russia by name, one wonders if they’d condemn Nazi Germany and Hitler. Maybe we should go back and look how the Church handled that. Oh wait, that’s been done and it’s not a good look. Whatever happened to the catch phrase “stand for something”?
They didn’t condemn Hitler. In fact, initially, a lot of them liked Hitler. But from a practical consideration, if they condemned Putin, they would put members in Russia at great risk.
Churches can take stances on policies—like opposing Prop 8–same sex marriage, but they cannot endorse specific candidates else they risk losing their non-profit/not taxable/charitable status.
During the 2020 presidential campaign, our ward conference speaker (1C in SP) spoke at length re: the accomplishments of our then current president. He made no attempt to hide his disdain for anyone not voting a straight GOP ticket.
The fallout was predictable. Several highly intelligent and active ward members simply went inactive. One family of five embarked on a path of more research and eventually resigned. Since karma is real, that WC speaker has since been excommunicated and undergone a messy divorce.
Although the recent FP letter strikes a tone of moderation, those in the know understand that, behind the scenes, the Church wields significant political power – especially in the Mormon Corridor (UT, ID & AZ).
I close today’s thought with a relevant quote from Dante:
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
It seems to me that there is a serious moral crisis at our top ranks right now, and it is related to (and in part caused by) the same moral crisis within the GOP right now, and the global right wing efforts as well. Some of these conundrums have been with the Church for a long time, but are coming to a head:
– Is authoritarianism really bad if we (the good guys) get to be in charge?
– Does religious freedom include the right to curttail others’ rights and equality as citizens, if their existence threatens our worldview? Is this limited to within the Church and by the Church or can it be expanded to a protected right to discriminate by individual believers in the public sphere?
– Can we undermine the credibility of experts and institutions and replace them with our own values and feelings?
– Can we silence our critics under the guise of protecting religious freedom?
My guess is that among the Q15, a roughly equal number supports Trump (even still), as would prefer someone else who is also a GOP candidate but less scandal-ridden. But I would also guess that there are only 1-3 at most who are not straight-party GOP voters, and they aren’t going to be very successful at shifting opinions.
Having said all that, the Church used to be (prior to 2016) a very conservative politically group that at least had a bit of a heart to it regarding things like immigration and poverty and even some moderation on women’s rights and gay rights. My guess is that leaders feel more conflicted about these things than do the majority of full-throated MAGA members. To me, the majority of active Church members are intolerable at this point.
With respect to political neutrality about specific candidates,, in my opinion the church has been consistent, wise, and principled. I have never seen any case where general authorities or local leaders discussed any specific politician or election in a church building—politics just doesn’t come up in our ward. Elder Oaks talk on living with election results in Oct. 2020 was also good.
The institutional church should be challenged publicly for a long laundry list of reasons (including my disagreement with the stance they take on LGBT issues), but here is an area where they are doing well and it should be recognized. Definitely outperforming their evangelical peers.
“Is authoritarianism really bad if we (the good guys) get to be in charge?”
That is a profound question on some levels.
People in charge (the authoritarianism leaders – those good guys) get “paid attention to” as a default (and financial support and other perks like that).
There are so many voices that are proving more valuable an investment of a person’s resources to “pay attention to” (because they are transparent, truthful, relevant, entertaining, educational, and/or just cost less) that the “good guys authority” is questionable and/or dwindling.
The side problem “the good guys” being strictly male is also a problem. If/when “the good guys” aren’t in charge anymore because their female competitors are co-leading and/or are in charge instead, the brand of authoritarianism known as patriarchy also winds up as a gender performing civil war (and the last straw for some individuals in how they navigate the world as they leave instead of being a participant).
Comparison of previous and latest version of the statement is at https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/political-neutrality.pdf and you can find Sam Brunson’s post on BCC.
About integrity statement. I admit that “integrity” means slightly different things to different people and that few politicians have a completely unblemished record, but yes I would welcome some emphasis on this. There is still a line buried in Handbook 2 in the (38.8.30) that says “Latter-day Saints have a special obligation to seek out and uphold [and vote for as applicable] leaders who are honest, good, and wise”.
Hawkgrrl, the conundrums you list in your 2:50 post ought to be their own post. Lots to unpack there.
Angela, here are my answers to your questions:
– Is authoritarianism really bad if we (the good guys) get to be in charge?
+Authoritarianism in government is bad, no matter who is in charge.
– Does religious freedom include the right to curttail others’ rights and equality as citizens…?
+No, but the First Amendment means what it says. Citizens need the courage to embrace it, or risk not being free.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– Can we undermine the credibility of experts and institutions and replace them with our own values and feelings?
+What is an expert? Science may inform us but (1) Science is never settled but always subject to skepticism and reevaluation and (2) Science does not and should not be elevated above human rights. Please observe the Soviet Communists were big believers in “Science”, as long as that science supported “the Party”.
– Can we silence our critics under the guise of protecting religious freedom?
+ A church, like any association, can choose who is a member in good standing of that association. But a church cannot and should not attempt to silence anyone from using non-church platforms to express their opinion.
I don’t believe the First Presidency and Q12 are as politically energized as you suggest. I don’t believe they view church endorsement of political parties a good investment. I also don’t believe any of the brethren are “Progressives” as that political label has meaning today. And seeing that you also find the majority of active Mormons “intolerable” why do you associate with the LDS church or concern yourself with it?
Disciple, a serious question. What has the government done to limit the free exercise of your religion?
A Disciple,
Your comment re: science and human rights is backwards (literally and figuratively). It should read: Human rights should not be elevated above scientific findings. For example, it is now accepted scientific fact that certain individuals are born gay (see Gregory Prince’s book: “Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences”).
Contrary to BKP’s infamous assertion, God does create gay people. Yet the Mormon Church insists on carving out a “special” LGBTQ category that severely limits the rights of such individuals to engage in normal, healthy relationships while maintaining full fellowship and rights.
In your limited world, a body of 15 men can limit human rights despite accepted science. How is this Christlike?
Lws329 shared the letter from the First Presidency that said: We urge Latter-day Saints to be active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaged in civic affairs, always demonstrating Christlike love and civility in political discourse.
The Church may teach to be involved in civic affairs, but they also need to remind members that in doing so they need to obey the law. What a mess our community (outside the ID, UT, AZ corridor) is in because 2 overzealous members in our stake who are on the school board decided over a year ago to completely disregard what our governor mandated in regards to kids wearing masks at school. They voted (with one other non member) to defy our governor and said kids could go back to school without masks. The school district was warned by the state if they didn’t comply they would lose funding. Those board members didn’t care. They put our whole district in a financial peril. It was especially concerning to me because my husband is a teacher. He could have lost his job! Since then, there has been a recall of these board members. It has gotten really ugly in our school district, even with death threats towards those spearheading the recall. One of the overzealous member’s spouse came out publicly saying that the spouse was “called of God to do this”. It has given non members around here a real bad taste for Mormons! They are being sued for this illegal act all because they think they are above the law.
A Disciple,
” I do not know if the election was stolen from Trump”
Whoa, conspiracy alert. Also, I find it farcical in your comment how you cannot actually bring yourself to criticize Trump. As if pathological lying isn’t a problem or criminality isn’t a problem. The Trump Organization was convicted of fraud. Trump was found liable by a Manhattan jury of sexual abuse and defamation. Robert Mueller found and laid out in fine detail 10 areas where he possibly obstructed justice, which is a felony mind you, but did not pursue them on the belief that he didn’t have the authority to indict a sitting president. Trump has been indicted on 34 felony charges and is expected to be indicted on additional felony charges including possible RICO charges in Georgia and Federal charges for obstructing justice. If a Democrat were doing any of the things that Trump was doing you would be screaming bloody murder. You look for cheap equivalences, but there are none. And you know that.
Also, on foreign policy, Trump is single-handedly responsible for bringing Iran closer to developing a nuclear weapon. That’s a fact. Let that sink in.
I’m gonna interpret the so-called “neutrality” creed as something aimed at warmongering profiteers like Romney, whose political platform advocates for the “building up of navies and armies and financial institutions in order to get gain.”
Ding! ding! ding! to @Lois: “Churches can take stances on policies—like opposing Prop 8–same sex marriage, but they cannot endorse specific candidates else they risk losing their non-profit/not taxable/charitable status.” Now THAT is truly a foundational statement worth pondering. I can’t help but wonder if losing tax-exempt status wasn’t on the table if the neutral statements would still be on the table.
I’ve come to the point that ANYONE who believes, implies, or questions if the election was stolen is a person incapable of rational thought. Sadly, I know too many who fall into that category.
As a progressive democrat, at times I wish the Church was more vocal about some things. However, I understand why they are not, and I respect that. I’ve had enough exposure to the Senior Brethren to know where many of them are on our current state of political affairs. I know of certain members of the Q12 and 1P who privately counseled their families not to vote for DJT. Frankly, I’d be surprised if any did (I wonder about 1).
The biggest threat to our republic is the rise of Christian Nationalism. And it seems some of our fellow-saints are caught up in that ideology, Mostly in the Mormon Corridor. Don’t know any LDS right-wing nuts in our area.
Lastly, it is a fact that Benson’s extremism was battled and held at bay by many in leadership. It was Benson’s “disobedience” to counsel that was troubling. In the end he was neutered politically. His efforts to install Burchers at BYU was challenged and defeated by none other than Dallon Oaks. There is a story there that would make most progressive members, extremely proud of some key figures.
On this chest thumping, often from libertarians but also from progressives, about how they are more “righteous” than the rest over their opposition to war and militarism and how all presidents are bad because they engage in this war or that war, this is nothing more than cheap potshots from sidelines that fails to recognize reality. I hear many actually proclaim Trump as a sort of hero because he didn’t get us into any new wars, unlike that immoral Biden who is propping up the war in Ukraine and making it worse by sending it weapons. Let us never forget that Trump, before the love fest between him and Kim Jong Un, was steadily engaged in insults and provocation and pushed North Korea to develop their nuclear program to the greatest degree they had ever done. Trump ordered the assassination of Qasim Soleimani, head of the special operations branch of of the Iranian military and key figure behind Iranian military strategy, bringing the US to the brink of war with the country and risking an escalation of already pent-up tensions in the Persian Gulf where the US has significant geopolitical presence and interests. In recent weeks, Trump has been talking about an invasion of Mexico to somehow magically stop fentanyl from coming across the US border. On the flip side we have hand-wringing by progressives over Obama ordering the assassination by drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, a major figure in violent jihadism hiding in Yemen, all because he was an American citizen. Look, war and wars are just a fact of life, no matter your intentions and no matter how anti-war a leader of the US or any large country in the world may be.
After 9/11 happened, I simply can’t imagine any US president not going into Afghanistan. The US was hugely divided on the eve of 9/11 and Congressional Democrats bitter over Bush’s legal but illegitimate election victory in 2000. After 9/11, it was near unison accord in Congress to approve of a war in Afghanistan. Anyone would have done that. If Bernie were in power, he would have probably that. If a pacifist Republican (few and far between) were in power, such as Ron or Rand Paul, they probably would have motioned to do that. It was practically the collective will of the American people to invade Afghanistan. Heck, nearly the entire world was behind the US in its decision to invade Afghanistan. The US managed to put together a very large multinational coalition consisting of 27 different countries committing troops to the effort and dozens more who verbally supported the invasion. In hindsight, the invasion was a failure. The US and its coalition toppled but did not end the influence of the Taliban, they helped install a series of horribly corrupt and inept governments, and eventually the Trump administration raised the white flag and negotiated directly with the Taliban about a transition of power, basically putting Biden in a position where he was nearly obligated to withdraw forces from Afghanistan. And then the Republicans and Trumpists proceed to blame Biden for withdrawing forces, when Biden was doing nothing more than fully carrying out what Trump had started anyway. All that is beyond the point. You can sit on the sidelines and live in your world of fairies and unicorns all you want. There is no cohesive or viable US administration without a war policy and without a willingness to act aggressively. It is an unfortunately reality, I concede. I am anti-war. I have no interest in wars of any sort. But conflicts simply happen, because of dictator egos as well as many different bottom-up forces, and they can have a propensity to spin out of control. I favor minimizing aggressive actions, sure. For there have been many times when aggressive acts have only led to more suffering and have made things worse. The Vietnam and Iraq Wars come to mind. Heck the Afghanistan War was the same. It would have been better never to have an invasion. But then there are times when aggressive actions preempt outbreaks of even greater chaos and acts of further aggression. I see US intervention in Ukraine as such. More war and more chaos could emerge were the US not to intervene by leading the charge to supply the Ukrainians. They are preventing Putin and the Putinists from waging a massive attack on sovereignty by attempting to recreate what Russia was territorially under the Soviet Union.
Reuters reporting in July 2020
“Overall, seven of every 10 Republicans, and four of every 10 Democrats, believed any kind of voter fraud was a widespread election problem, the poll found.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-exclusive-idUSKCN24W26S
There is a long history of Democrats denying election outcomes. Many of these examples concern the 2000 and 2004 presidential races. The outcomes of which Democrats have disputed for years
“In 2002, Gore claimed he “would have won” if every vote in Florida was counted and that he “absolutely” believed he would become president after the ordered recount.”
“15 House Democrats even objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes”
Then there was the 2004 Presidential election:
“31 House Democrats voted to reject electoral votes from the state of Ohio, including Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Barbra Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), and now-Senator Ed Markey (D-MA”
“In January 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claimed there were many “legitimate” questions regarding the “accuracy” and “integrity” of the 2004 election”
Then there was 2016
“In October 2020, Clinton claimed that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “we still don’t really know what happened.”
…
Yet in 2020, questioning election results was labeled “sedition”.
One wonders, is it always sedition to question election outcomes, or only sedition when Trump does it? The evidence shows it is only wrong when Trump does it.
150 examples of Democrats denying election outcomes
https://gop.com/research/over-150-examples-of-democrats-denying-election-results-rsr/
For the record, I think Trump’s challenge to the election results was legally and politically pathetic. Trump’s complaints lacked focus and became all about him, instead of the faulty processes used. But that is Trump. He, like his 2020 opponent is a selfish, conceited man. America needs better quality presidents but won’t as long as voters keep choosing the “lesser of two evils”.
Disciple, I’m surprised you can’t tell the difference between rhetoric, hyperbole, and political gamesmanship, and actual sedition. Engaging in a plot to present alternate slates of electors in order to win the election is seditious. Leaning on the secretary of state in a battleground state to “find votes” is seditious. Concocting conspiracy theories and stoking grievance to whip the rabble into a frenzy as they march on the Capitol is seditious.
As for your actual examples: They lack actual merit.
As you will recall, there was a Florida recount in process that Gore could have plausibly won had not the Supreme Court stopped it despite there being no legal precedent or theoretical grounding for the cessation. Regardless, on national TV Gore conceded the race because he knew it was best for the country. The fact that he thinks he would have won means nothing.
You provide no context for Clinton’s comments on the 2016 election. Perhaps she was speaking to Russian disinformation, which is well documented.
I was somewhat sympathetic to your initial comments above and the challenge of parsing morality when it comes to occupants of the Oval Office. It is hard, and much of what presidents do, especially when exercising war powers, is problematic. Should Bush have been prosecuted as a war criminal? Should LB for Vietnam? Should Truman for dropping atomic bombs on Japan? Those are really hard calls. The truth is that nature abhors a vacuum, and the international arena is an unending series of anarchic vacuums that power grabbers constantly rush into. As the biggest dog on the block, the US often does not have the luxury of doing nothing and catastrophic outcomes are sometimes the result.
Read In Retrospect. Robert McNamara spent most of the rest of his natural life trying to explain and apologize for Vietnam after leaving public life, and you’d think that kind of effort from someone who occupied as high-level a position as he had would make a difference. It has not.
familywomen: Your point about tax exempt status worries among the Q15 is an interesting one, and I do think they take this extremely seriously and therefore don’t cross the lines (apparently they think the SEC is a joke, though, so smh), but as a counter-point, other churches, primarily Evangelical sects, have gone much much further than the LDS church in openly endorsing candidates, and they haven’t lost their tax exempt status over it. This doesn’t seem to be a fight anyone’s willing to wage against churches, although personally I think any church that gets into politics (even to the extent the Church has in the past) should be taxed. Add to that the EPA scandal, and there are even more reasons to reconsider how we tax churches.
A Disciple: I certainly won’t disagree with you that Democrats have also challenged election results, including Gore and Stacey Abrams, to name two famous cases. But unlike Trump, they did in fact concede and accept the results when they lost in court. Nobody committed acts of violence in their name over it either. Hillary also conceded, despite winning the popular vote (which is one reason Democrats are unhappy about the current state of the vote, because we live in a country with minority rule). There’s a long history of gerrymandering in our country which is another key reason that both parties are going to be unhappy with election results.
Nobody considered Trump’s 62 failed lawsuits (or as you say “questioning election results”) sedition. The people who committed seditious conspiracy are the ones who oversaw a violent breach of the capital resulting in the deaths of Capitol police officers and who stockpiled guns in a Washington DC hotel. While Trump hasn’t yet been charged with or convicted of seditious conspiracy, testimony of key staff members sure sounds like he was the only one in the White House watching this sh*tshow unfold with glee, and refusing to do anything to stop it, egging it on instead. Did he actually conspire with the Oath Keepers & Proud Boys or was he just opportunistically unwilling to stop the violence they wreaked in his cause? That’s the question that hasn’t yet been decided.
As much as the Church claims political neutrality, they still frequently meddle in state and local politics in Utah. It’s practically an open secret that nothing in Utah of consequence in politics or public policy happens without the Church having a say. Despite the fact that I live in a coastal blue state, I would very much appreciate if the Church would follow through on their pledge of neutrality, and stop putting their thumbs on the scales of Utah politics. Despite claiming to uphold The Family as the most important building block of society, the overwhelmingly-LDS Utah politicians push through some of the most anti-family public policies found in the nation over and over again, bafflingly. I think the Church learned their lesson from overplaying their hand with Prop 8; to avoid trying to legislate morality outside of the Morridor, but with conservative retrenchment into Utah it doesn’t seem to be letting up, much to the chagrin of many of my Utah-based friends and relatives.
Also, I wish the Church would be more willing to publicly hold accountable LDS politicians who act immorally or unethically. Senators Mike Lee and Mike Crapo come to mind, but there are many others who also use their Mormon bona fides to appeal to Mormon voters to get elected, then while in office act in various despicable ways that would normally disqualify them from good standing in the Church. Punish them publicly, regardless of political party, so as not to violate the neutrality policy. Part of the reason Trump got overwhelming support from Utah voters is because the Church turned a blind eye to his well-documented immorality, which signalled to members that they have permission to do the same with their political candidates. No need to call him (or candidates like him) out by name, but simply state that those who seek high public office must be held to high standards of personal and professional conduct.
@Jack Hughes Further to your point, the Church cannot reasonably claim political neutrality as long as it owns the Deseret News and controls its editorial stance.
A Disciple,
Democrats have long decried voter suppression, which is a real problem. Republicans are routinely shamelessly promoting voter suppression bills and passing all sorts of legislation to that end. The GOP has been trying to suppress the votes of likely Democratic voters and is more aggressively trying to do so than they’ve been in decades.
Democrats have also rightly recognized the illegitimacy of the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections. Bush and Trump legally and constitutionally won those elections but illegitimately so since they did not win the popular votes. This has contributed to an overall legitimacy crisis of the office of the presidency in the US, which has deteriorated in the American public’s eyes since 2000, especially because a key part of the president’s claim to power and legitimacy is his ability to claim that he has won the vote of the majority of citizens and more votes that anyone else in the last election cycle. Where else can people hold office without winning a majority of their constituents’ votes? Only the biggest office in the US. This is a massive problem. No major Democrat has ever claimed that large-scale voter fraud has resulted in them losing elections. No Democrat has ever incited an insurrection at the US Capitol building or any state Capitol buildings wherein violent mobs have posed direct threats to legislators’ lives and security has asked a sitting Congress to actually run for their lives.
Also, over 60 civil suits challenging the results of the 2020 election were tossed by judges, many of them Trump-appointed. One was tried on its merits in Wisconsin by a Trump appointee, who found the claims completely baseless. Trump-appointed Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary Chris Krebs said the 2020 election was the most secure election ever and that there was no evidence of fraud on a scale that would compromise the election results.
Sorry, but you can’t bothsides your way out of this. Your repeated minimization of the egregiousness of Trump’s and his supporters behaviors is utterly disgraceful. You fell for a baseless conspiracy theory, and big time. I haven’t agreed with many of your comments in the past, but this is a new low. It’s just sad and embarrassing that seemingly serious people actually believe this. It makes me fear for the future of humanity.
John W.,
What did I fall for?
In your own words you write: “Democrats have also rightly recognized the illegitimacy of the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections. Bush and Trump legally and constitutionally won those elections but illegitimately so since they did not win the popular votes. ”
If the victory was Constitutional then it was legitimate. The Constitution allows for a process to challenge election outcomes. Challenging election outcomes may be politically stupid. But a challenge is not sedition. Calling an election illegitimate is free expression exercised by all politicians, as you and I agree.
Where we seem to disagree is you want Trump to be a scapegoat. Let’s disagree then. But no need for you to imagine thoughts in my head that don’t exist.
Good news is when DeSantis is America’s next president then he will be the scapegoat of all that is wrong in the world. The burden on Trump and on Trump haters will be lifted! 😀
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Please keep comments focused on discussion of issues and topics, not calling out other commenters. Yes, you can reference an earlier commenter, just don’t make it a one-on-one verbal wrestling match.
lws329, thanks for bringing up that First Presidency letter read in many wards last week. Maybe I need to do another post next week focusing on that letter, which does seem to give some advice beyond what is given in the political neutrality page linked to and discussed in this post. Here is a link to a Church News piece that gives the entire text of the First Presidency letter:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2023/6/6/23751117/first-presidency-letter-emphasizes-participation-in-elections-reaffirms-political-neutrality
Thanks for the link Dave B. I wasn’t in Sac Mtg on June 1, so it was most informative to me, and somewhat encouraging to see the FP kinda sorta directly addressing knee-jerk partisanship in the voting population that may be within their influence. It seems to encourage open-minded study of each individual candidate and issue, which is the bare minimum among the options available to voters. But the carefully measured tone may not be strong enough to have an effect on members who only see what they want to see, and ignore things in our society that are truly alarming. (Example: the disgusting epidemic of daily gun deaths. Example 2: egregious criminal acts committed by a former president/hopeful candidate in process by several separate justice agencies. There are many more examples of this magnitude) Which selective seeing is so common among members that it’s even clearly demonstrated by commenters here in our outlying corner of obscurity. So yeah, my take is that it’s not strong enough for that level of partisanship.
Useful information. Thx
I appreciated this passage from the first presidency letter (as posted to the church news link above) and think it is more important practically than the updates to the statement of the church’s institutional neutrality:
“We urge you to spend the time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you will be considering. Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards … “
.” Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without carefully study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).”
Touche.
. “or that Church leaders believe are essential to preserving democracy or the essential functioning of the United States Constitution.” Possibly speaking up and out in the future? I hope so.
I do not understand what John W said, that A Deciple of Trump jumped on, either.
The letter that was read over the pulpit sounds better but as trust in reliable information sources and honesty has been so undermined by republicans, there is no agreed truth. Will deciples of Trump ɓe able to accept truth if it is critical of their prophet? Çan anyone get through to them? Will they for example see Oaks as fake news if he says voting for Trump is dangerous to democracy? Which I think the letter infers.
If one political party does all it can to undermine democracy, and the voting system, in a two party system, at what point do you not have a democracy? Whoever is the republican candidate in 2024, is there any reason to believe they will accept the result of the election? If they win is there any reason to believe there will be another fair election in the future? This is a republican threat, there is no democrat equivalent.
If the republican candidate opposed the anti democratic activities of his party of the recent times we are back to comparing party policies, but when the republican party is advocating the end of democracy a different situation.
This is a very important time for America as a democracy, and to those of us who need a superpower to lead the free world to limit the superpowers which are not democracies. I hope there are enough people who can understand the consequences of their vote this time is on a different level.
“Should Bush have been prosecuted as a war criminal? Should LB for Vietnam? Should Truman for dropping atomic bombs on Japan?”
yes
“Those are really hard calls.”
no they’re not
if you’re the commander in chief while civilians are getting vaporized, you’re guilty, you’re not the ONLy guilty party, but you’re guilty
I was a missionary in Ukraine during the dissolution of the USSR, so I have very strong biases about the current conflict. I understand why the church is cautious about taking sides in inter-country conflicts. It really does makes sense. On the other hand, the carefully chosen words of President Nelson at general conference shortly after the war started, the obvious choice to avoid even using the word “war” to characterize the conflict, was painful to many of my Ukrainian friends. These are people who have devoted the last 3 decades of their lives to the church, and believe deeply in its mission. If they would like the president of the church to call a war a war, then I want that for them, and it should be doable even within the parameters of their new neutrality statement. How far is the church willing to go to appease certain national governments that insist on the world accepting their propaganda as truth? Does the church regard Taiwan as a country?
I’m curious where recognition of conspiracies and “secret combinations” fits in the modern LDS church. A central prophecy or warning of the Book of Mormon concerns the threat of secret works to destroy freedom and to cause death and destruction. Both Nephi and Moroni included stark warnings of “secret combinations” in their writings. They specifically called out “The Gentiles” of America in the latter days. See in particular 2Nephi 26 and Ether 8.
Of modern LDS leaders, Ezra Taft Benson was well known for mentioning the Book of Mormon warning of “secret combinations”. Yet even in 2017, President Nelson made a mention, but without comment,saying the Book of Mormon contains, “Warnings about ‘secret combinations.'”
What are church members to make if this warning? What are we supposed to see? What do we need to oppose? Our faith says something very bad is in our midst, but what is it? How can we resist the thing if we as a community are unwilling to talk about it?
From Ether 8:
“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain …
Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you…
For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people…”
A Disciple,
I believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon–and I find it interesting (and horrifying) that Central America is considered that most murderous region on the planet. (An argument could be made that certain areas of Africa are just as bad–but those conflicts tend to be intertribal and are therefore considered war related rather than gang related.) And the problem is the rise of powerful gangs. Some of the gangs have gotten so powerful that they are literally at war with their own governments.
That said, we Americans might consider gangs small-time business compared to the horrors associated with the proliferation of communism. But even so, when we look at how bad things have gotten in Mexico and its neighbors to the south–the amount of death and destruction seems to be on par with what the Book of Mormon peoples experienced because of secret combinations. I find it telling that that murderous tradition should rear its ugly head right at the time when the Lamanites are blossoming as a rose. (And I believe the “blossoming” of the Lamanites at this point is being fulfilled more by Latin Americans than Native Americans.)