This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
In Summation
The LDS Church emphatically claims political neutrality, but the case studies of the Equal Rights Amendment and Proposition 8 call it into question. While the LDS Church sanctioned political activity under the banner of morality, to accept that explanation misses the broader narrative. The “veil of morality” argument for political neutrality rests on two premises: (1) that the LDS Church is politically neutral, and (2) that when the LDS Church is not acting in a politically neutral manner, it is a moral intervention, not a political one. The conclusion is then that they can claim political neutrality after all. There are two problems with this line of logic. First, the first premise is included in the conclusion, which is fallacious.[1] Second, the second premise is patently false. All political action is political. One can offer moral reasons for said political action, but that does not make it any less political. For example, people who picket abortion clinics do so for moral reasons, but it is a political action nevertheless. Further, evangelical and Catholic groups that engage in such picketing do not deny that this action is political, rather the tendency is to embrace political action as part of their duty as Christians (acknowledging all the while that it is political).
Strong political involvement against causes shared with conservative evangelical and Catholic groups served to separate the LDS Church from the specter of its history and enjoin it to mainstream Christian culture. In turn, the LDS Church itself became mainstream as members of this faith became increasingly visible in culture and politics. This culminated in the so-called “Mormon moment” surrounding Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.[2] It is this striving for acceptance that I posit led to an increase in ostracization of church members who go against the grain, by being intellectuals who question church doctrine, feminists, or members of the LGBT+ community.
The challenges surrounding LDS political neutrality are critical to understanding the intersection of religion and politics in the United States. Nearly every elected official at the federal level professes some sort of faith or religious practice.[3] Everyone enters a political situation with their own worldview and their own set of biases derived from that worldview. This explains the increasing demonization of viewpoints different from our own. We are not merely disagreeing, but disagreeing on touchy subjects that cut to the core of someone’s worldview, which fundamentally shapes someone’s identity and most deeply held values. Without making a sincere attempt to openly discuss how these worldviews and values affect the policymaking process, we will continue to be left without nuance in our understanding of U.S. politics. The elephant has always been in the room. It’s about time we discuss its presence.
[1] a logical fallacy often referred to as the affirmation of the consequent
[2] by the news media, anyway
[3] 0.2% of Congress is religiously unaffiliated, as per NPR. Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Nonreligious Americans Remain Far Underrepresented In Congress.” NPR. January 03, 2017. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508037656/non-religious-americans-remain-far-underrepresented-in-congress.