New political neutrality and voting letter

[Anonymous]

https://www.ldsliving.com/has-the-churchs-new-political-neutrality-and-voting-letter-been-read-in-your-ward-yet-heres-what-it-says/s/11619

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/first-presidency-letter-emphasizes-latter-day-saints-participation-in-elections-and-civic-affairs-reaffirms-political-neutrality/

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/06/16/the-first-presidency-urges-against-straight-ticket-voting/

New political neutrality and voting letter has dropped to be shared with congregations nationwide.

In addition to emphasizing that the church will be neural in all things politics (with the one exception of moral issues), there is a discouragement of reflexive straight-ticket voting as “a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).” That is some pretty strong language.

“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.”

As someone that struggles to participate in meetings where it seems that everyone else thinks differently, I applaud any and all steps toward increased tolerance of diversity of any sort.

[Anonymous]

Tough subject.

I’ll add a wheatandtares article written by hawkgrrrl to your list of links:

https://wheatandtares.org/2020/10/28/the-churchs-changing-statement-on-political-neutrality/

It talks about how the letter on political neutrality has changed in recent years.

Here’s another article on the political neutrality letter:

https://wheatandtares.org/2023/06/06/latest-update-to-lds-political-neutrality-statement/

Disclaimer: the articles have a definite political bias. If the links have to be removed, so be it.

Political divisions were present long ago and the divisions were shouting at the top of their lungs and impossible to ignore by 2015. And now, eight years on, we get this and Nelson’s peacemakers talk during general conference. It’s only gotten worse with time, so better late than never I suppose.

I just wonder whether these messages are pointed enough. I don’t know whether I want the church to be political (well, more so than it already is) but at the same time when I reflect on Old Testament prophets or even Jesus I ask myself whether they would shy away from being direct and taking sides so they could… what? Maintain tax exempt status? Avoid upsetting the majority of their followers? Some other fear?

Are prophets called to be bold or are they called to wallpaper over the issues of our day by intimating that both sides are equally bad? Which kind of prophet would a fish swallow?

When you don’t take a side, you’re still taking a side, especially in the well established political climate of the church. Don’t take a side? The more dominant side will continue to dominante.

Tough subject to talk about/around.

I will say that the church has created more space for people in recent years. Things are better than they were a few decades ago, I suppose that’s progress. That said, it can be tough.

For instance, when the church does take a soft position on a side in the culture war that is contrary to the side that the dominant culture has already taken, people get upset. This is the acceptable kind of upset at church. One that won’t land a member in any hot water or have other members questioning their loyalty to the church, the gospel, or god.

Compare that to the member that takes a soft position on a side in the culture war that is contrary to the dominant culture, especially one in which the church has placed their thumb on the opposite side of the scale. That’s the unacceptable sort. One that often causes people at church to question someone’s loyalty and morality.

In both scenarios you have groups of people in opposition to a position the church has taken but there’s a definite double-standard. Probably just a generic majority/minority or might is right dynamics at play. I’m not sure.

I think the challenge is that the church today is the result of many years of being in a feedback loop. People that don’t fit the mold tend to leave (or maybe they’re run off), the monoculture gets more extreme resulting in more people that don’t fit the mold leaving, making it more of a monoculture, etc.

Parting shot, the ghost of ETB looms large in today’s church.

[Anonymous]

I liked that Hawkgrrrl’s article from 2020 compared changes to the 2020 statement from various other statements issued in previous election cycles. By 2020 the church’s suggestion that we vote for people of integrity had been dropped and Hawkgrrrl speculated on some possible causes for this.

I felt that the second article focused on the introduction and concluding paragraphs of the 2023 statement and really skips the middle parts that have me all excited. I was also saddened that this 2023 article re-airs Hawkgrrrl’s 2020 complaint about the removal of the suggestion to seek for candidates of integrity without mentioning that the recent political neutrality statement put that suggestion back in.

Quote:

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.

Bolding and underlining is mine.

I’m seeing the statement as a mixed bag and I’m looking for the nuggets that I like. I am hoping for real progress here for increased tolerance of a diversity of political viewpoints. I want to live in a church where LDS US Senators Harry Reid and Mitt Romney can be friends and serve in a presidency/bishopric together.

[Anonymous]

I had to look up what “reflexive straight-ticket voting” actually means:

For people who are also wondering, here is what artificial intelligence says about it:

Quote:

Reflexive straight-ticket voting, also known as automatic straight-ticket voting, is a voting behavior where a voter consistently selects the same political party for all the available offices on a ballot. In other words, a voter chooses all the candidates from a single political party without considering the individual qualifications, stances, or merits of each candidate.

For example, if a voter always votes for all the Democratic or Republican candidates on a ballot without evaluating each candidate’s positions or qualifications, they are engaging in reflexive straight-ticket voting. This behavior is driven by a strong party affiliation or loyalty rather than a detailed consideration of each candidate’s suitability for the specific office they are running for.

Reflexive straight-ticket voting can simplify the voting process for individuals who strongly identify with a particular party, as it allows them to quickly cast their votes without individually evaluating multiple candidates. However, critics argue that it can lead to uninformed voting and may not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected to office. This is because some candidates might not be the most qualified or representative of their constituents, but still receive votes due to their party affiliation.

It’s worth noting that the availability and practice of straight-ticket voting can vary from one jurisdiction to another. Some places allow voters to mark a single box or selection to vote for all candidates from a particular party, while others require individual selections for each office. In recent years, some places have also eliminated or modified straight-ticket voting options to encourage voters to make more informed choices about each candidate.

I hope this isn’t violating political conversation boundaries here on StayLDS, but I can’t help but disagree with the church’s statement that you should avoid reflexive, straight-ticket voting. Candidates tend to vote along party lines, independent of their personal qualifications, so it makes sense for the citizenry to vote along party lines if they want to influence legislative outcomes. It’s along party lines that governments are empowered to get things done with house and senate majorities (all by party), for example, so again, there is a case for voters to vote along party lines.

The case against non-reflexible straight-ticket voting can be illustrated is this example:

Let’s say your personal values are for small government, the right to bear arms, war when necessary to preserve individual freedoms and human rights, low taxes, a lack of social engineering, traditional family values, etcetera. That is very Republican of you. You have two candidates — a Republican and a Democrat — the Republican is a freshman at university in his early 20’s, makes regular gaffes and immature, poorly thought-out comments, and hasn’t led anything in this lifetime. He doesn’t speak well and doesn’t seem particularly well-versed on the issues. The Democrat candidate is in his 50’s, well-spoken, up-to-date on issues, a born leader, and someone capable of getting things done consistent with Democrat ideology.

For whom do you vote? If you don’t want to consign yourself to a string of Democrat majorities that will vote for everything you disagree with, changing society into something you don’t like, why vote for the Democrat? The person with Republican values should vote for the 20-year-old Republican knowing that he’ll likely vote along party lines, creating the kind of society the person with Republican values wants.

Note: I chose the Republican and Democrat preferences and candidates in this fictitious analogy randomly, so it’s not meant to further one ideology or the other — only to illustrate the downside of voting for the candidate and not the party. I could have easily reversed the candidates making the Dem immature and inexperienced, and the Repub seasoned and qualified to make the point.

My stance on this? I think the church is just trying to preserve its 501 (c ) 3 status by not coming out as political. That’s it. It’s not because they think you should vote for the best candidate and not for the party, irrespective of candidate credentials. It’s self preservation and little more.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

The person with Republican values should vote for the 20-year-old Republican knowing that he’ll likely vote along party lines, creating the kind of society the person with Republican values wants.

I do agree that this is where the division and two-party system is right now. For one side to win an election (even with a fairly objectionable candidate) feels like a win for the party.

I would prefer that candidates had more variation on issues and would vote for good ideas without undue concern for where they came from or who might get the credit.

I also hold out hope that the systems of the United States can withstand the more extreme political swings to the left and the right and end up somewhere in the middle – doing an adequate but imperfect job of providing the environment and building blocks for peace, security, and prosperity for the majority of citizens.

[Anonymous]

There’s a case to be made against straight-ticket voting.

The people that are elected do more than just vote along party lines, they also contribute towards what the party lines will be. If you elect enough immoral people, eventually you will end up with immoral party goals. The party will continue to vote along party lines but now they’re supporting things that are immoral.

As a side note, I find most of the issues parties use to get voters on their side to be nothing more than pandering. Lies to get votes.

Also, I don’t see social engineering vs. no social engineering, I see your brand of social engineering vs. my brand of social engineering. It’s not big government vs. small government, it’s your big government in these areas and small government in those areas vs. my big government in those areas and small government in these areas. It’s not family values vs. no family values, it’s your family values vs. my family values.

The proverbial your and my, not you and me specifically.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Also, I don’t see social engineering vs. no social engineering, I see your brand of social engineering vs. my brand of social engineering. It’s not big government vs. small government, it’s your big government in these areas and small government in those areas vs. my big government in those areas and small government in these areas. It’s not family values vs. no family values, it’s your family values vs. my family values.

Good thoughts nibbler!

[Author]

Posts