, ,

That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay

•

There were two times, actually, but only one was in General Conference.

In his April 2026 conference address “Alive in Christ,” Dallin H. Oaks acknowledged what an ugly mess this country is in politically, thanks in no small part to people who claim to be Christians.

Many current writers characterize the time in which we live as toxic, a time of contempt or hostility toward adversaries. This hostility affects many different relationships in society, involving many whose Christian beliefs should orient them otherwise.

As President Oaks pointed out, hostility and contempt for adversaries are incompatible with the basic teachings of Jesus Christ.

In the Sermon on the Mount, He declared: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” […] Today we might say that we are commanded to love our adversaries.

Instead of mutual hatred, President Oaks gave us a reminder of how our politics are supposed to work.

When we seek to keep all the commandments in our personal lives, we are sometimes accused of having no love for those who don’t. When we show personal love and support loving causes, we are sometimes misunderstood as implying support for results that contradict our other religious duties. But as followers of Christ, we should seek to live peaceably and lovingly with other children of God who do not share our values and do not have the covenant obligations we have assumed. In a democratic government we should seek fairness for all.

I repeat: “In a democratic government we should seek fairness for all,” even when that means supporting people or cooperating with movements we do not fully agree with.

President Oaks returned to the same themes just a month ago in a speech at the National Cathedral in which he rejected the currently popular theories of the case for voting Republican. He began by dismissing the claim that there is anything special about Christians with European ancestors:

What became the United States was founded and built by people of different nationalities, ethnicities, and beliefs. Its unifying purpose was not to establish a particular religion or to perpetuate any of the diverse cultures or tribal loyalties of the old countries.

If the United States is a country rooted in a particular shared history, as J. D. Vance and others have argued, then we as church members have a claim on citizenship as precarious as any immigrant or child of immigrants. President Oaks pointedly mentioned

our early history as refugees—surviving expulsion from Missouri in the 1830s by a unique “extermination” order, and in the 1840s forced to flee the borders of the United States to try to establish a separate society in a land then claimed but not settled by Mexico.

Instead of a citizenship based in a heritage and history we do not fully share – in blood we may not have and soil that we left – as church members in the United States, we base our American citizenship on belief in the Constitution.

Speaking for my own Church, the U.S. Constitution is of special importance to our members. We have a revelation that identifies the Constitution as divinely inspired. This does not mean that every word is inspired, but that it is based on inspired principles.

Rather than seeing limitations on the executive branch as a nefarious thwarting of the popular will, President Oaks explicitly identified checks on presidential power as one of the Constitution’s five inspired principles.

A third inspired principle is the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

He also seemed unlikely to support the Republican Party’s current mutation into the personal party of Donald Trump.

Fifth, we see divine inspiration in the vital purpose of the entire Constitution, which is that we are to be governed by law and not by individuals. Our loyalty is based on the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to particular office-holders.

President Oaks referred several times to the “common good,” including in the title of his speech, not in the sense of a state-imposed moral framework, but the common good of a liberal society where citizens disagree on basic values.

As a practical basis for unity, all of us should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires all of us to obey some laws we dislike and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own. We should make every effort to understand the experiences and concerns of others, especially when they differ from our own.

He also did not seem inclined to support any form of Christian Nationalism.

We should be especially careful not to seek total dominance for all our own positions. Even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs, that vital right is not absolute. Advocates for absolute religious freedom should yield to the reality that in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs or disbeliefs, the government must sometimes limit the right of some to act upon some of their beliefs when it is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all.

So get your kids vaccinated for the good of the rest of the school, no matter what you claim to read into the Book of Alma.

And on a national stage, President Oaks again repeated the line, “We should seek fairness for all.”

What should we learn from this speech?

I do not think you can claim to love your adversaries one moment, and vote for an avenging angel who will make them suffer the next. In the last election, one candidate promised to be the president of all Americans and to include a Republican in her cabinet; the other promised the thrill of seeing your political enemies face persecution. It was one of the easiest tests of moral judgment you will ever face, but a lot of you failed it.

Often people have said they just can’t vote for a Democrat because they disagree with the Democratic Party on abortion or gay rights. Now the prophet has told you, twice, from the most prominent pulpits in the Church and in the country: That’s not how this works. Our goal should be “fairness for all” and building coalitions – the Constitution “compels a divided people to build coalitions that allow them to act together for the common good” – with people who don’t share all your values.

We all make mistakes. There’s another election coming up soon. This time, try harder to follow the prophet.


Comments

16 responses to “That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay”

  1. Thank you for posting this. I was a republican for 30 years but I believe it is very important to elect democrats in this election in order to weaken the amount of power the Republican Party holds in the US, including in Utah because Trump and many others including Senator Lee are working to destroy our democracy. No other issue comes close in importance.

  2. Kendall Buchanan

    Excellent post ?

  3. Thank you for this wake up call. I was wasting my time studying the issues closely, examining candidates’ positions and evaluating the pros and cons of each (seriously, for the sane voter, no political party nor candidate can fully represent her views and eternal shame on those who think otherwise).

    But now that random guy on the internet has called me out, I am going to do straight D-party voting! And it will save me moral angst, knowing that I am on the right side of every issue now.

  4. Kevin Christensen

    “By Proving Contrarieties, truth is made manifest” says Joseph Smith: so consider the Opposite of our ideals:
    Power or influence can be maintained by coercion, impatience, brutality, pride, and feigned love. By transactional interactions, and by using rhetoric effectively and saying whatever flatters enough people of the right sort to gain and keep a following, and by projecting our own guilt onto other people, we can paint them as embodying all corruption, and serve our own agenda and ambition at all times.
    Reproving constantly and without concern for facts, when moved upon by pride and vanity and ambition, and then afterwards showing an increase of love towards the flag and your allies, that we may be united against whomever we decide is an enemy, whomever we designate as scapegoat, to blame for all our problems and distract attention from our shortcomings,
    That people may know better than to criticize or cross you for fear of what will happen to them
    Let thy bowels be full of charity to your allies via government contracts, cabinet positions and lifetime judgeships and pardons, plot revenge upon your enemies and critics, and let ambition and pride garnish thy thoughts unceasingly, and then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of adoring crowds and sycophants.

    And the opposite of the hymn to charity:

    The opposite of Christ does not suffer long, and is unkind, envieth whoever has what it wants, vaunteth itself constantly, and is notably puffed up,
    Behaves unseemly, always seeking its own gain, is easily provoked, and thinks evil of anyone who opposes their ambitions and desires, or is just different
    Rejoices in getting away with whatever it wants to do, and bitterly opposes any attempts to call it to account,
    Will not put up with anything, believes only what it wants to hear, hopes only for personal gain and power, so that it will never have to endure anything difficult or unpleasant.

    Given that “pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile,” it follows that impure knowledge leads to contracted souls, hypocrisy, and guide.

    Given that, “by this shall ye know my disciples, that they love one another,” what should we think of a person who proclaims both “only I can save you” and “I can’t like anyone who doesn’t like me. It’s just that simple.”

    Thanks for pointing out what President Oaks has said in full display of his prophetic calling. Worth remembering.

  5. As a RINO I sometimes feel like a man without a country.

    Jonathan, I don’t think what President Oaks said means that we should be willing to vote for that which we cannot stomach. But I do think it means that we should be tolerant and willing to compromise in ways that we can stomach–though it may be a bit distasteful–in order to move things forward.

    As I’ve gotten older I’ve tried to vote in ways that reflect the goals and purposes of the Kingdom–as I understand them. Maybe I made a mistake in not voting for either major candidate last time–but I made the best decision I could based upon my own lights and, I hope, a little inspiration. Afterall, I’m the one who has to live with me.

    As an aside, another great thing about President Oaks’ talk was that we can rest assured that not everything the church does these days is to make nice with white nationalists.

  6. Since the prophet is talking about voting and politics, I think we should pay attention.

    Thor, I’m glad you’ve seen the light. We have been counseled against party-line voting, though. I’m sure there’s an independent or two in there somewhere you can vote for.

    Jack, the thing about voting is, we all have to live with the consequences of your decisions (and everyone else’s too). Be sure to read President Oaks’ talks – he has quite a bit to say about maintaining our commitments and values even while working towards compromise with people who don’t.

    I don’t love every Democratic candidate out there, and there are even one or two I find alarming. It’s possible that someday I’ll have to vote for a competent normie Republican – an endangered species at the moment, unfortunately – over a Democrat who’s truly gone over the edge. But that’s not the case this year, not in any of the elections I can vote in.

  7. Let’s make a deal. I won’t twist the words of Pres. Oaks or any other apostle or prophet to say you have to vote for Republicans if you will try to refrain from twisting them to say I have to vote for Democrats.
    When I stand before the judgement seat, I don’t expect my voting record will be near the top of the list of sins I’m held accountable for. I rather suspect it won’t be brought up at all. At one time I thought it was expected that we could all vote for whoever we thought would be best for the country without having our righteousness called into question, but that day seems to have passed. I’d rather return to a time when we could disagree on politics while still fellowshipping with each other.

  8. Are we limiting ourselves to when he was President of the Church? Because he addressed this pretty clearly in October 2021:

    “There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.

    Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time.”

    Yes, I think the example of voting for a Democrat even though you don’t approve of their position on abortion if they’re better on the issue that’s most important to you at the moment–say, sustaining and defending our divinely inspired Constitution–is exactly the kind of thing he had in mind. But he also makes it clear we should not be loyal to any political party, only to the issues we care about.

    What I consider essential reading for President Oaks’ approach to politics:

    Love Your Enemies–October 2020 conference
    Sustaining and Defending the Our Divinely Inspired Constitution–April 2021 conference
    Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination–Speech at University of Virginia in November 2021
    Faith, Freedom and the Common Good–Speech at the National Cathedral last month

    Jack, I suspect President Oaks feels exactly the same way you do.

  9. Curtis Pew, voting is a choice like any other, and it doesn’t come with a special dispensation that lets us escape the consequences for our choices. Under normal circumstances, the difference is probably inconsequential. But we are far from normal circumstances. People keep proudly confessing, right here in the comments on this blog, that they voted for Trump because they hate liberals like me and will enjoy watching me suffer, or because they wanted to watch the system burn, or similarly depraved reasons, and I do not think that they will escape divine judgment for their votes unless they repent. People warned us for years that, based on past behavior, Trump would harm the civic fabric and moral character of this country, and after the critics have been proven correct, continuing to elect people who support Trump is either sinful folly or sinful malice.

    RLD, I approve of the bibliography, and I usually approve of your calm voice of reason. But we had a chance to return to normal, and we blew it. Now we have to recognize that these are not normal times, and we are a long ways from returning to normal. After Trump attempted to overthrow a democratic election through lies and violence, continuing to vote for his supporters falls closer to supporting the king-men against a free government than it does to choosing between Obama and Romney.

  10. When I stand before the judgement seat, I don’t expect my voting record will be near the top of the list of sins I’m held accountable for.

    Curtis, I wonder about that. For some elections, more than others, ones voting preference is this microcosm of what ones priorities are and what one is at their core. Given the lack of sunday school lessons about your voting record being brought up on Judgement Day, I suspect you are correct, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder.
    Take this weeks Come Follow Me reading in Isaiah for example. Isaiah goes over how the people’s Fast’s aren’t doing anything, because they aren’t lifting yokes of oppression. Yes, they weren’t adding to their lists of sins by Fasting, but they weren’t developing empathy as part of their Fasts, which is what God really wants them to do. Gain some empathy and then turn that empathy into action. So just like how you’re thinking about your “lists of sins” (I’m not saying that I don’t too), the people that Isaiah is railing on, are also thinking about keeping their lists of sins short by following the commandment for holding a regular Fast. So it could be that your efforts in breaking or lifting the yokes of oppression are going to matter more on Judgement Day than a list of sins (or list of meals Fasted). And how can you lift yokes of oppression? In a democracy, that would be by voting. Are you voting for those who are trying to lift yokes of systemic oppression, or are you voting for those who say that there is no systemic oppression (because they have advantage and view equality as oppression)?
    Yes, there is a lot in the gospel about personal keeping of commandments, but once in a while there are these sneaky messages about relationships with the less fortunate and building a Zion community; things which generally have nothing to do with a list of personal sins.
    It leaves me wondering.

  11. I want to be very careful in answering because I do take seriously prophetic counsel about trying to be a peacemaker. I will try to be charitable in interpreting what you have said, but ask that you extend the same consideration to me.
    All your arguments about a moral imperative to oppose Trump assume that he is some kind of unusually wicked leader, a “threat to democracy”. I honestly don’t see it that way. I did not vote for him in 2016 because of his obvious flaws, but once he was elected it seemed to me that his opponents were actually much worse, an opinion I still hold. I’m not going to try to convince you of that, but ask that you accept that we can disagree without condemning each other.
    I don’t actually think I’ll have to account for a list of sins at the judgement. I was invoking a literary trope to say that voting choices are not often the most significant moral choices we make—and, again, that we can disagree about politics without judging other people’s morality.
    About compassion: I take very seriously the teachings of Christ and His prophets on the need to care for others. However, I also think that political or government action is often the worst way to express that care. When politicians talk about compassion, their programs usually end up increasing the power and prestige of government actors while only providing dubious benefits for the people they claim to be helping. Paying a generous fast offering and serving in our wards and communities are better ways to follow the Savior.
    As I said at the start, I’ve tried to express myself in ways that won’t offend others. If I’ve said anything you consider offensive, please forgive me.

  12. As a middle-right conservative without a party, Curtis Pew’s response scares me a whole lot more than the thors of the world.

    My admitted guess is that thor knows better but has always chosen party and will do so until he dies. But Curtis Pew is like so many people I love and respect who somehow still support the most transparently amoral person we’ve ever elected. I’ve heard so many times over the last 11 years that “Sure, Trump has his faults, but those democrats are just too mean to him and now everyone has Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The problem is that Trump’s faults include literally fomenting a rebellion on Capitol Hill; refusing to peacefully pass power and thus knowingly allowing cops to be bludgeoned by his supporters; actively using government to tamp down political speech he doesn’t like; taking what can only be considered bribes from foreign governments in the form of airplanes; sewing seeds of doubt in the American election process, based on knowing falsehoods; admitting to protecting credibly-accused child abusers; and personally enriching his net worth by $3 billion *in the last two years alone* as he’s mingled his office with his business interests.

    And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. And the thing that drives me most nuts is that Republicans in DC are mostly looking the other way, abdicating their role as a check on the presidency. They saw what happened to conservatives that spoke up in Trump’s previous term and now they’re pretending that the biggest fleecing of America isn’t really happening. My current governor ran a campaign ad about transgender swimmers this week, an issue which affects all of about a two dozen people/programs in America. Meanwhile, he’s got nothing to say about Trump or his policies or his forever wars or his cozying up to foreign dictators. And most people in my state wouldn’t want to hear it anyway, because then my governor too would have the dreaded “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

    This is the easiest civics test we’ve ever taken, and more than half of us are failing. It’s also the easiest “lesser of two evils” analysis that has ever existed in American politics. And more than half of us are failing that too. I have no doubt that the Curtis Pews of the world are sincere; I count them as close friends and family. But it has broken my heart to see otherwise good people defend Trump.

  13. Curtis, thanks for your thoughts. Compassion is a good topic, because the obligation to have compassion, empathy or love for others doesn’t in itself answer the question about how best to help those in need, and so a variety of approaches and political disagreement is normal. Some on the left would argue that compassion obligates us to permit marginalized members of society to ignore rules, even at the cost of unsafe public spaces. But the response of some on the right has been to renounce any need for compassion or to embrace outright cruelty. Fortunately most politicians are reasonably sensible and we don’t have to choose between only those two options in most elections.

    But the unhappy truth is that Trump is in fact an unusually wicked leader. To add just one more example, his treatment of Canada, our closest ally, even going so far as to government meetings with fringe Albertan separatists, is utterly shameful. Wherever you look, there are more examples that reach well beyond policy preferences to actual evil. Trying to justify Trump’s actions debased Mike Lee and it will do the same to you if you go down that path.

  14. Matthew B.

    I’ll admit I am one of those people who voted for Mr. Trump last time. That being said, I only did it because I didn’t trust Kamala Harris, the VP to be an improvement and found her whole “regulating speech” on social media platforms especially concerning. Sure you could make the argument that I could’ve voted third party instead, but since when has ANY third party candidates EVER won a presidential race? All I can really say here is that I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump out of any love and admiration for the man at all. I even TRIED to make sure Mr. Trump didn’t get the GOP nomination. But it was all in vain. So there you have it. I’m not proud of my vote for Mr. Trump last presidential election, but I did what I did.

  15. Tom Marcusen

    Hey all, Do any of you know of the talk, (if it’s real and not AI), where President Dallin Oaks made comments about – not passing laws or voting for candidates or political parties to not pass laws about something that we find immoral or wrong? That the way is not to pass laws for all of society to have to abide by? I saw a video clip and It seems like maybe it was 10 to 20 years ago. He certainly wasn’t in his 90s like he is now. It struck me as strange, but it was just a short clip (reel) and I’d like to see the full context. Thank you for any suggestions you might have on the talk title and when given.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.