The Church's Political Neutrality

[Sleeping in EQ]

On the one hand, I think the Church is serious when it says that the Church is neutral, and that Church members should be involved with the party they think is best.

I've also heard from a few people I know at the COB that there are at least some GAs who would like to see a healthier Republican-Democrat balance in the U.S. Church.

A difficulty arises, though, when the Church rather arbitrarily decides to make something a "moral" or "religious" issue and then goes about encouraging its members to take a predictably politically conservative stand, or even to engage in particular actions (communism, ERA, and gay marriage being obvious instances). Part of this difficulty is that in the shift to framing something as a "moral" or "religious" issue, the door is opened for Church members to think that the declarations of neutrality are just for public benefit. This also gives some conservative Church members the idea that they can go on a Rexburg Rampage and question the faithfulness of those who aren't politically conservative (witness CB, for example).

There have been at least a couple of times when the Church has come down on a more moderate side of an issue. They did this back in the early 80s over the MX missile, and more recently on immigration. On CB, there were literally some conservatives in bewilderment, and others essentially throwing fits. (A few even went so far as to say that the Church wasn't officially saying anything. It sounded like Sunstone running in reverse).

While I'm tempted to say, "welcome to my world," I really hope that the situation will improve for everyone.

One way to do this, and to stop undercutting the neutrality message, would be for the Twelve and First Presidency to stop pretending that they agree on everything, and to have a spectrum of opinions on various issues publically expressed. I'm not envisioning something like the Brown-Benson battles of yore, but rather a healthy acknowledgment of differing perspectives.

One major barrier to this is that it would encourage members to shift from an obedience paradigm to a develop-your-individual-moral-judgment paradigm. The fact is, that there are Church members (and at the highest levels) in both paradigms, but that many leaders think the first paradigm is easier to work with.

Another barrier is that some leaders are caught up in being esteemed over other flesh. This is harsh, maybe, but true.

In the long term, and as the Church gets larger, it will need to more obviously value its members who have developed their own, individual moral sense. It will need people who don't just wait for "Salt Lake" to tell them what to do, or who feel they can go on a Rexburg Rampage because someone's views don't conform.

This might also help Conference talks be more engaging.

My questions are:

1. Do you think the U.S. Church undercuts its neutrality stance? And if you do, do you think such undercutting is intentional?

2. Do you think the U.S. Church is becoming more or less politically diverse? Is it essentially static?

[MikeWaters]

1. Yes.
2. I don't know.

[Indy Coug]

1. No. Furthermore, I think where the church thinks it's important enough to publicly weigh in on an issue, that they present a united front, even if there was considerable debate behind the scenes. If they can't come to a united resolution on an important topic, then they shouldn't provide any specific guidance on the matter.

2. The demographics of US converts is changing, so I would expect that it probably isn't static.

[BYU71]

1) I think most people who think about it realize the "neutrality" stance means they won't endorse a candidate. That is all it means. As long as they don't endorse a candidate, they have met their criteria.

2) I think the membership is becoming less extreme in their conservative views.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

1) I think most people who think about it realize the "neutrality" stance means they won't endorse a candidate. That is all it means. As long as they don't endorse a candidate, they have met their criteria.

No, they only get involved in issues that have direct moral impact. I doubt you'll hear the church issuing political statements on taxes, health care, national infrastructure, or Social Security.

[Solon]

I don't know the answer to either of these. I would imagine that as LDS become better educated (which I hear is happening), they will vote less conservatively.

It surely bothers me when I feel that the church is telling me how to vote. I know, I know - they don't specifically tell people how to vote. They urge people to "contact their representatives" and the like. But there is often a clear side LDS wants to support, and the implication is clear: opposing the bill=opposing LDS leaders.

That's tough to swallow for me.

But at the same time, it's nothing different from that which other churches do.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't know the answer to either of these. I would imagine that as LDS become better educated (which I hear is happening), they will vote less conservatively.

It surely bothers me when I feel that the church is telling me how to vote. I know, I know - they don't specifically tell people how to vote. They urge people to "contact their representatives" and the like. But there is often a clear side LDS wants to support, and the implication is clear: opposing the bill=opposing LDS leaders.

That's tough to swallow for me.

But at the same time, it's nothing different from that which other churches do.

I'm not sure this is the same as opposing them on doctrine though, Solon. When the church asks its members for advocacy obviously they want them to go along, but I don't think its equivalent to speaking out, say, on some church policy one disagrees with.

In other words, I'm not sure it falls under the category of not sustaining the brethren (temple recommend questions, and all that blah blah). That said, I'm very cautious about moving in directions that contradict their counsel. Prophets have a strange habit of being proven right.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

That said, I'm very cautious about moving in directions that contradict their counsel. Prophets have a strange habit of being proven right.

and wrong as well. While they may yet find men on the moon, I'm not keeping my fingers crossed. And I do believe that humankind has reached the moon as well.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and wrong as well. While they may yet find men on the moon, I'm not keeping my fingers crossed. And I do believe that humankind has reached the moon as well.

I'm trying to figure out what personal counsel I could've drawn from such a conjecture ... can't think of any.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and wrong as well. While they may yet find men on the moon, I'm not keeping my fingers crossed. And I do believe that humankind has reached the moon as well.

Have they excavated soil on the moon in search of animal remains yet? You can't find what you don't look for.