The Church on Politics Part 2: An official declaration (hypothetically).

The following statement is not authorized by the leaders of the Church. Please read it only as a thought exercise. 

We wish to clarify the stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on political neutrality and political activity. 

The Church is not an end unto itself. It exists to help all the children of our Heavenly Father to return to him. The most important aspects of this endeavor are faith unto repentance, baptism by water and by the Holy Ghost, and daily repentance in a spirit of humility. All people can strive to observe these commandments, no matter what political system they live in. 

However, our daily life is indeed affected by the political and legal frameworks of our governments. King Mosiah II abdicated his throne in favor of a more democratic form of government. The main reason he quoted for this decentralization of power is that one wicked ruler can influence the entire population to commit sinful behavior (Mosiah 29:16-18).  

When the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote the 12th Article of Faith, he acknowledged that Latter-day Saints may be subject to a variety of types of governments. He already had the prophetic vision that the Church would one day be a worldwide institution.  

But accepting the fact that political governments may evolve (or devolve) at different rates in different parts of the world does not constitute an endorsement of all kinds of governments. History has shown that democracies are the most fertile fields for growing advances in quality of life, due to the principles of equality that they tend to promote. The ideal of equality is championed in scripture. Peter taught that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). Social classes are condemned in the Book of Mormon as a construct of Satan (3 Nephi 6:12-15). 

God revealed that He himself had “raised up” the “wise men” who established the U.S. Constitution (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). That document did not guarantee completely equal treatment to all residents, but it was a large step in the right direction. The Constitution preserved enough religious freedom to allow the Church to be restored in 1830. Subsequent reforms in U.S. government made advancements in equality for people of color and women. 

Members of the Church are encouraged to continue guiding their countries toward freedom and equality by taking part in all levels of government, as the laws of their country allow. This invitation to participate includes voting in primary and general elections at least, and may include running for and serving in public office. 

For Latter-day Saints, the call to political action came early. In 1833, Joseph Smith received a revelation that warned the people “...When the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10) 

We call special attention to the wording of this verse. Honest and wise women and men are not found automatically; they must be sought for diligently. 

We do not endorse specific political parties. However, we warn that blind loyalty to a party can endanger our freedoms and lead us to sin. Voting for or against candidates just because they belong to one party or another does not constitute a diligent search.  

We reject the notion that failing to vote for Party A only helps Party B. As the hymn says, “Do what is right; let the consequence follow.” If no party faithfully represents the issues that are important to you, then it may be time to form a new party. 

Specific candidates may also lead God-fearing voters astray. Indeed, we warn that political figures may fulfill the description that Samuel gave of false prophets in Helaman 13:27: “If a man shall come among you and shall say: …walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth… ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.” The way to detect false political prophets is the same as for false religious prophets: “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Candidates are not good or wise if their actions break the basic commandments of God, the law of the land, or the expectations of human decency. 

We encourage voters to seek diligently and vote for candidates who best uphold principles of righteousness and freedom, no matter what political party they represent. It may take courage to vote differently than other groups, especially members of other Christian churches. We believe that Latter-day Saints are brave enough “to act for themselves and not to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26). 

Looking both backward and forward, we warn citizens against movements and ideologies that seek to consolidate political power, increase authoritarianism, or demonize groups of people. Specific questions of policy and political platforms may be evaluated by asking a few simple questions.

“Will this help to maintain power and freedom in the hands of the people?” 

“Will this benefit many children of God in the long run, or just a few?” 

And the Golden Rule: “If I were directly affected by this policy or law, would I still think it was fair?” 

We believe that the principles stated above can provide clarity and guidance even in a changing world. However, we also wish to address some specific misconceptions about political activity and standards that have arisen in some parts of the world. 

The Church does not recognize any political party as “the party of morality” or even “the party of fiscal responsibility”. People on all sides of the ideological spectrum are good members of the Church--in spite of the fact that all sides are equally subject to the prideful temptations of the devil. 

Taxation of equal citizens who are represented in government is not evil. Taxation on income or consumption is not the same thing as communism of capital. Governments, like churches, rely on revenue from their constituents to carry out their programs. We urge voters to consider the level of basic human needs, and push for fairness within the frameworks of taxation. (See Doctrine and Covenants 49:20.)

The Church practices the following principles of sound finances, and encourages families and governments to do the same: avoiding debt, living within a budget and preparing for the future. We encourage citizens to monitor that tax revenue is spent honestly by the government that collects it. Blind faith in a party will not take the place of audits and accountability in public finances. 

Government welfare programs should be monitored against corruption, but they are not inherently evil. The Church and its members should help to alleviate human suffering, and those efforts can extend beyond personal interactions and Church donations. We encourage citizens to engage with public officials to ensure that welfare funds go to help the needy, not the greedy. At the same time, we echo the advice of King Benjamin to err on the side of charity (Mosiah 4:17-18). 

The Constitution of the United States of America is unique in that it is mentioned in scripture. When Joseph Smith repeated the words that had been revealed to him for the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, he asked God to let the principles of the Constitution be established forever (Doctrine and Covenants 109:54). We remind citizens that the core principles of this document form a system of checks and balances of power. We condemn any attempt to circumvent those checks and balances. At times voters are tempted to think, “This is a special case, and we need to give more power to someone so he can save us from the enemy at the gates.” We repeat the divine endorsement of the US Constitution as it was established, along with its amendments. The Founders knew that any truly special case would pass the thresholds for approval within the branches of government, as designated in the Constitution. 

Regarding “the enemy at the gates”, we remember the example of the governor Lachoneus in The Book of Mormon. When facing the imminent attack of a literal violent enemy, he told his people: “As the Lord liveth, except ye repent of all your iniquities, and cry unto the Lord, ye will in nowise be delivered out of the hands of those Gadianton robbers.” (3 Nephi 3:15) We likewise extend a call to repentance to all nations throughout the world. 

While it is not the function of churches to govern in this modern day, we recognize that only a righteous nation can hope for the full blessings of God. It is the primary function of churches to promote righteous choices by individuals and families. We appreciate the freedom preserved by good governments who allow all churches to fulfill their divine mission, and we encourage all people to actively support good governments. 

The Church on Politics, Part 1: A hidden message?

In modern times, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has regularly disclosed its official stance on political neutrality. The most salient points of that stance are that the Church itself does not support specific parties or candidates, and that members may not use the name or the facilities of the Church to imply support for specific parties or candidates. Everybody knows these things. The prohibition on preference is clear. 

Or is it? 

In the movie Dumb and Dumber, one character gently rebuffs a suitor by telling him that his chances with her are one in a million. The oblivious suitor nods as if processing her message, and then he exclaims, “So you're telling me there's a chance!” 

Throughout the same decades that I have heard Church leadership affirm its official political neutrality, I have heard rank-and-file members of the Church state that we should vote for the party of morality--and that in the US, that means the Republican Party. 

Please understand: these statements are usually made on an informal basis, one-on-one, and are usually not said during Church worship services. I think the only time I heard a Church member state a preference from the pulpit was when a sister asked, in her closing prayer, for God to protect President Trump in the position that He had chosen for Trump. But off-the-cuff remarks supporting Republicans can be heard in many of the less formal social meetings of the Church. On social media, Latter-day Saints are just as likely as other people to publicly voice their political leanings--and most of them lean hard right. 

When the Church sends the consistent message that it does not prefer parties or candidates, why do so many Latter-day Saints respond, “Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we know you mean that we should vote Republican”? 

Let's zoom out for a moment. The desire to choose moral rulers is not unique to Latter-day Saints. Some other churches encourage involvement in politics. In fact, some of them endorse specific parties and candidates. 

One of the most surreal interviews I have seen was on the Christian Broadcasting Network in 2011. Republican candidate Newt Gingrich justified cheating on his second wife with his third wife by citing “how passionately [he felt] about this country”. The question to him was a softball, gently tossed by the host David Brody after invoking God’s forgiveness. 

https://youtu.be/5Zde_U4s9Wo?t=316&is=8NW8s8e--TnNVdFN 

Newt Gingrich was a Puritan on the streets (he led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton over sexual misconduct), but a hypocrite between the sheets. Why would a Christian influencer like Brody want to publicly support such a candidate? How did Christians get to that point? 

The answer is the two-party myth: the belief that only votes for one of the two major political parties can do any good. Well-intentioned people across the entire political spectrum truly believe that if they don't vote for the horrible candidate that claims to represent their interests, then they will be directly helping the opposing major party. They also believe that the opposing major party is not just horrible, but is the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. I have lost track of the number of otherwise intelligent people who have tried to explain to me (like I’m five) that I am supporting evil when I vote for a third party. Voters from both major parties wholeheartedly believe this, and both major parties are determined to perpetuate that belief. 

In his CBN interview, Gingrich (or the editors) made sure to lead off with intimidating statements about Muslims and atheists. Of course Christians want to avoid scary things like that, things that supposedly could threaten our Christian way of life. And if Democrats are supported by scary groups, then our only choice is to give more power to the Republicans who claim to be Christian, in order to save us. Right? 

Fifteen years after that Gingrich interview, we see where those assumptions have gotten Christians. A disproportionate percentage of them voted three times for Donald Trump, whose personal and public actions have frequently violated Christian ideals on a wide variety of subjects. They have maintained their support for him as he has manipulated the stock market and accepted bribes from convicted criminals and foreign powers. They have stood by as he has brazenly carved away the checks and balances of the Constitution--the document that Latter-day Saints, in particular, believe Jesus established. When Gingrich was a candidate, the party asked Republicans to turn a blind eye. When Trump became president, the party asked them to live a blind life. And they accepted. 

Ask them why. Likely, their first answer will be to stammer that Democrats are worse. Ask them what Democrats have done that is worse than the personal and official atrocities of Donald Trump. They will then be forced to deny Trump's most visible atrocities, and/or make ridiculously unfounded claims against Democrats. It's uncomfortable when the truth is not on your side. 

The religious right is frightened and confused. They have always looked to trusted religious leaders for guidance, and now those leaders are telling them to double down on the party of Trump. As a wise woman told me, “They just never made a voting contingency plan in the event their party turns out to be corrupt.” 

As noted above, Latter-day Saints have not been told by top leaders to vote for one party or another. But their fear and confusion matches those of other Christians, so they have chosen to follow the example of churches whose leaders are publicly supporting Republicans.

It's time for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to issue a statement. I don't know why its leaders have stayed silent for so long (even after Pope Leo XIV has spoken out about human rights abuses perpetuated by a certain party). What might it sound like if they spoke up?

Terrorist or freedom fighter?

Many Latter-day Saints like me grew up thinking that Joseph Smith's two major incarcerations were completely undeserved. 

I want to talk about one of them: Liberty Jail in the winter of 1838-39. 

A large group of Saints had first settled in Jackson County, Missouri, since June 1831. The area was not totally uninhabited; there were Missourians already living there. But this was the edge of the frontier at that time, and plenty of land was available for purchase. The Saints did not try to push the Missourians out, and they did not demand any financial support. They simply wanted to live and work in the area. 

Over the next two years, tensions grew. There is no evidence of Saints bothering or harming their neighbors during that time, but the preexisting Missourians felt extremely uneasy with the rate of population growth of this strange people with a strange religion. 

Finally, in October 1833, the county government supported the issuing of an edict that forced all Mormon settlers off their lands. Jackson County residents offered to purchase those lands, but most of the Saints refused. They believed that a revelation from God prohibited them from selling out. And, they reasoned, they had done no wrong. 

A small amount of violence broke out, first by Missourians hoping to show the Mormons that they were serious about the eviction order. Then, some of the Saints fought back. After an armed skirmish that resulted in the death of one Mormon and two non-Mormons, the Saints surrendered and agreed to leave their homes. They fled north across the Missouri River to Clay County, where they lingered for three years while the state government figured out what to do with them. 

In 1836, the state created a new county, Caldwell County, specifically for the Saints to live. The state legislature considered this a compromise to resolve the issue of lost property in Jackson County. 

The Saints were not happy about the less-arable land in Caldwell County, but they didn't fight against the relocation plans. They bought new homes in Caldwell County and restarted their lives again. 

But their population was growing fast because of religious immigration, and there was never any written specification that they had to stay only in Caldwell. The Saints spilled over into Daviess County to the north and Carroll County to the east. Still, the Saints did not take any land by force, nor did they try to force the existing population out of the area. They lived alongside the other settlers. 

In August 1938, some Missourians tried to stop a group of Saints from voting in the local election of Daviess County. The Saints were outraged. They were citizens of the United States and residents of the county. They were not barbarians or wild animals, to be cordoned off in Caldwell County and deprived of their rights. 

A group brawl broke out at the polling place, but no one was seriously injured. Nonetheless, the rumors and characterizations started to fly. On one side, the Missourians were spiteful bigots who wanted to take away Constitutional rights to religion and suffrage. On the other side, the Mormons were dangerous religious fanatics who wanted to crowd out Christians and prohibit slavery. 

Throughout the fall of 1838, hostilities increased on both sides. After Missourians in Carroll County expelled the Saints there, both vigilantes and militias were called up. Missourians started burning homes and threatening the Saints with guns. This time, the oppressed responded in kind. An armed group of Mormons looted and burned buildings in the Daviess county seat, claiming that the theft of goods was just retribution for what Missourian vigilantes had done to them. Then, in Ray County, armed Mormons mistook a militia for a mob and fired upon them. Only one Missourian died (to three Mormons), but an attack on the militia was considered an attack on the state. In response, Governor Boggs issued an order that all Mormons were to be exterminated or driven from the state of Missouri. Three days later, a group of Missourians massacred 17 Saints, including children, at Haun’s Mill. 

That broke their resolve. In November 1838, the Saints surrendered and left the state, refugees yet again. For encouraging the armed resistance of the Saints, their prophet and leader Joseph Smith was thrown into Liberty Jail. 

This was not, as I grew up believing, just because people hated Joseph Smith's religious teachings. The government of Missouri could point to armed violence from the Saints, while ignoring the years of harassment and oppression from the Missourians that preceded the resistance. Governor Boggs called the Mormons enemies; nowadays he likely would have called them terrorists. 

(Source of historical information: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Lyman Bushman. Chapters 8, 11, 19, and 20.) 

My point is this: when a strong and oppressive government pushes a group of people to the breaking point, that doesn't mean that the oppressors will be transparent about it. They will still cry foul when the oppressed finally fight back. 

Latter-day Saints can hear this story from their history, and sympathize with Joseph. Why can't so many of them sympathize with Palestine? 

Purple Badge of Courage

Purple Badge of Courage

Who are you planning to vote for this November, and why?

"I actually like Hillary/Trump, and I think she/he will make a great president that represents me well."
Stop reading. Either your dream or your nightmare will come true in November no matter what...right?

"I don't like Hillary/Trump, but I don't want my Republican/Democratic presidential vote to be lost."
Dear reader, your individual vote already doesn't make a difference, unless you live in a swing state or Nebraska or Maine. Thanks to closed debates, gerrymandering, and the perpetuation of the winner-take-all tradition by the parties in power, the destiny of most states is pre-ordained. So why don't you vote for someone you like?

"That's not what I meant when I said that my vote would be lost. I meant that a vote for anyone other than Candidate A is a vote for Candidate B."
I understand what you're trying to say, just as I understand people who talk of giving 110 percent. In fact, my point is based on the same kind of hyperbole: "A vote for either of the two main parties is a vote for the system to stay the same."
All you Bernie Sanders supporters out there, do you really think Hillary will make it a priority to change the crooked primary system that got her nominated? To the silent majority of Republicans with common sense, yes, it is partially your fault for not going to the polls to dump Trump in the primaries. But neither major candidate is going to reform the electoral system. Why don't you vote for someone who will?

"I'm a Democrat in a blue state who doesn't really like Hillary, or I'm a non-racist Republican in a red state."
You, my friend, have the best of both worlds. You have the opportunity to vote for a candidate that more truly represents you, and know that your party will still win your state. Now, if you turn down that chance  and vote for your party's candidate, just to feel like you're part of the winning team, then... read the book 1984, all the way through the last sentence. That last sentence is you.

"Whoa, that was harsh. I don't really support Hillary/Trump, I just want to be loyal to my party."
While you can use hyperbole to tell me that not voting for Candidate A is the same as voting for Candidate B, no amount of wordsmithing can claim that a vote for Candidate A is not an endorsement of Candidate A. If you vote for the (supposed) lesser of two evils, then you are still voting for evil.
And why does your party deserve loyalty? Republicans, your party let this happen. Democrats, your party made this happen.

"Well, it's true that I don't really want to vote for a corrupt carpet-bagger or a petulant buffoon. But then who should I vote for?"
Republicans, have you considered the fiscally conservative, small-government Libertarian Gary Johnson? Democrats, have you considered the war-averse, socially tolerant Libertarian Gary Johnson?
If neither of those two is conservative or progressive enough for you, then you can vote for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle or Green Party candidate Jill Stein, respectively. All of the above names will be on the ballot in many states.

"Any other options?"
Remember that in most states, nothing is stopping you from writing in a person's name. It could be Ben Carson or Bernie Sanders. It could literally be anyone and your vote will be counted as not null. You can even write in "Taylor Swift" and Kanye will let you finish.
(In nine states, shamefully, a write-in vote is counted as a null vote. The worst of these is Oklahoma, because Castle and Stein won't be on the ballot either. Democracy much, Oklahoma?)

"Hey, I've read the Constitution! I know Taylor Swift isn't old enough!"
Not to take office, no. But her name would still count as a non-null vote in most states.

"What? You want me to vote for someone who cannot win? You're calling for anarchy!"
Well then, vote for a qualified candidate who merely won't win.
I am calling for a revolution--a bloodless one. (Republicans, put down the guns. Democrats, put down the Molotov cocktails.) The lack of bloodshed doesn't mean nothing is at risk, though. In order for your voice to be heard, you'll have to give up the likelihood of winning.

"Um, that doesn't seem so risky. I've survived my candidate losing before."
I know, right?
In fact, the biggest risk is that America will miss this chance. There's never been a better time to scrap the broken system of primaries than the year in which that system led both main parties to nominate a candidate whom the majority of party members don't like!

"So you're telling me there's a chance?"
If Hillary/Trump fail to get 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives would elect the President. The worst-case scenario is that they pick the candidate that you like the least: an outcome that was quite possible in a normal election. Even then, politicians at every level would be spooked enough to start listening to us the people a little more.
The best case scenario is that a third-party candidate is elected president. Then you would be a victorious warrior in an unprecedented revolution.
Either way, you could wear your purple badge of courage with pride and a clean conscience.

"What if I just stay home and don't vote for anyone?"
Now that would be throwing your vote away.