Every time the Church comes out with a political position there’s the very predictable hue and cry from people who either think that the Church shouldn’t be involved in that issue, or they wonder why their own issue isn’t receiving the same treatment, so I wanted to slow down and systematically look at some principles for the Church’s political involvement, both as a descriptive matter (what the Church actually does), and why their approach might make sense. For reference, I created a GPT-generated chart in the Appendix that shows (more or less) all the cases of the Church being officially involved in a political issue in the past 50 years. 

The Church as a Right-Wing Advocacy Organization

In terms of descriptives, one common concern is that the Church takes positions on these right leaning issues with all its attendant costs (every time the Church takes a position on something it potentially ostracizes those on the other side of the issue), so why don’t they do it for left leaning issues? 

They do. 

Ask any anti-immigration GOPer in the Utah state legislature who the most powerful force behind Utah’s immigration-friendly laws are, and they will talk your ear off about the Church’s back-door meddling in Utah politics (ask me how I know). As seen in the chart below, a large swath of the Church’s position statements over the past two decades have been about the immigration issue.  

(And on that note, ask a right-wing COVID skeptic what they think about the Church’s stance on the COVID vaccine. It’s not just the left that has to deal with a Church that occasionally disagrees with them politically.) 

Frugality of the Church’s Political Capital

In terms of the Church’s influence, if it came down on a position on every marginal issue, even in Utah, its political capital would be exhausted fairly quickly. My read of their cadence is that, when it’s not an MX missile-type issue that directly affects the Church (essentially making the LDS homeland target A in the case of a nuclear exchange), they occasionally step into issues frequently enough to occasionally be effective, but not so frequently that their influence is watered down. (Early Utah historians would know this better and can correct me, but I suspect that the Brigham Young-era of frequent Church involvement in politics laid the groundwork for the prohibition era rejection of the Church’s political heavy-handed involvement among members). 

Pragmatism

When looking at the Church’s involvement over the past 50 years a pattern emerges: the Church picks it battles, tends to avoid symbolic fights where its influence has a negligible chance of doing anything, and tends to focus on areas where their influence might actually be a deciding factor. 

For example, while the Church has officially come out against abortion-related laws in Nevada and Idaho–places with large Latter-day Saint populations (and please stop it with this protestation that the Area Presidency is acting contrary to the Church’s Actual Position and wishes–we’re Mormons; Area Presidents don’t blow their noses without getting approval from Salt Lake), it has not officially taken a position on analogous initiatives in Virginia, Missouri, Kansas, and many other states that have or have had abortion on the popular ballot. As far as I’m aware, it hasn’t even taken a specific position on rather draconian legislation in places like Massachusetts that allow you to abort a baby at any point before birth for any reason whatsoever. 

California, Alaska, and Hawaii are edge cases with non-negligible LDS populations but not enough for the Church to be a kingmaker; still, I’m not aware of any cases where the Church has taken an official position on a state-specific law in the Deep South or East Coast where LDS numbers are negligible and its support would be entirely symbolic. In cases of national activism the LDS vote did sometimes turn out to be one of the deciding factors (e.g. the ERA, MX missile). Although there are a few cases that don’t fit into this category (e.g.the Marriage Amendment), the general rule of the Church pragmatically only taking positions where its influence might make a difference seems borne out. 

And I’m okay with God being a pragmatist. A common attempted gotcha for the Church’s abstract religious liberty talk is to point out that it’s silent on, say, Uighur, Tibetan, or Falun Gong religious liberty in China. There are two problems with this: first; it’s not in the Church’s interest to chase after the latest faddish topic. There’s no less reason for them to be involved in the less well-known issues like Shiite minority rights in the Arab countries or anti-Azerbaijani Armenian sentiment, and if the Church starts to branch out into broader global issues, with ~200 countries there’s really no logical end to where it should stop. I’m fine with the Church keeping its official-political-position attention closer to its geographic center. 

And sure, the Church could take an official stance on the historicity of the Armenian genocide, the Ukrainian invasion, or make a “Free Tibet” statement, but doing so would completely wipe out the buds of the Church in Turkey, Rusisa, or China while doing literally nothing for the Armenians, Tibetans, or Ukrainians.

Of course, if you don’t fundamentally care about the Church’s presence in these countries or its bottom-line overall, then you have no problem burning it all down to make a largely symbolic social point even if it fundamentally wouldn’t do anything for the people being harmed. But Church leaders do care, and they have to juggle these concerns.

Jesus as a Pragmatist

Often Jesus is co-opted here, as if he would take the right political position and be a “purist,” consequences be damned. I just don’t see that in the record. If anything He is a textbook case of political pragmatism. He created Christianity so that it could thrive in a variety of political conditions and specifically disclaimed having a kingdom of this world. The biggest example here is that we have no record of Him speaking out against the political institution of slavery in an empire where about about one third of the population were slaves. While I assume he would have spoke out against it in, say, 1860, it’s clear that a slavery ban simply wasn’t going to happen in 30 AD (indeed, as far as I know we don’t even have any records of anybody in that time and place being categorically against slavery) and Christianity had to live and grow in that world. (And yes, He was God, so He could have brute forced the matter, but that’s a broader issue of why God allows atrocities in the first place). 

The one time slavery as an institution is directly addressed in the New Testament, in Philemon, it’s painfully obvious Paul is clearly trying to thread a needle between encouraging people to treat their slaves well without challenging the servile foundations of empire, which again would not have done anything for slaves anyway, while not ending well for Paul or his nascent religious movement. (Eventually, of course, Christian sentiment through the British Evangelicals and Quakers did lead to the lightning-in-a-bottle event of a society [the British Empire] voluntarily banning slavery without being at the point of a gun [they were the ones bringing said guns], but it took a 1,500+ years of moral development to get to that point.)  

So I’m fine seeing God as a political pragmatist, and only flexing political muscle when it would actually make a difference, I don’t see evidence for the idea that He demands His people make symbolic political gestures that would wipe them out. 

The Ever-Eternal Nazi Reference

Another point that is often made here is “But the Nazis…” 

The idea goes that just as the Church was silent during the Nazi regime, so too is it complicitly silent in, say, the Ukrainian invasion. There are a couple problems with this. 

First, the premise just simply isn’t true. Despite the widespread idea that the Church was accommodationist, the fact is that Nazism was condemned by the First Presidency at General Conference and, thanks to the recent work of Stephen Smoot and the BH Roberts Foundation team in uncovering the Gestapo’s Mormon files (standard disclosure that I sometimes do some work for them), we know that the Nazis were suspicious of the Church. Some feel that the Church should have gone even further and essentially thrown the Saints in Germany under the bus (or into the camps like the Jehovah’s Witnesses) to make some people in the later 20th century feel good, with zero actual benefits to Jews, but in all I don’t have any major reservations about how the higher level Church (not speaking about local leaders, with a couple obvious cases, although local members were less likely to be Nazis than the population in general) handled the Nazi situation. 

It’s easy to armchair quarterback how the Church should have handled being in a totalitarian country, when it’s an objectively difficult needle to thread, so I simply reject the idea that this is some kind of a precautionary story for the general Church.  

Second, to paraphrase Al Gore, Nazism is a very particular kind of evil (ironically he was making this point when he pointed out that he had never called Trump Hitler, but JD Vance did!). 

Out of the about 200 countries nearly all of them have had an evil authoritarian leader at some point, so throwing around the Hitler comparison promiscuously says more about one’s limited historical knowledge base than anything. So there’s less a connection with “how should we handle this particular group” and how we should handle the Nazis than one might think. 

So, if we accept the idea that it’s not a sellout for the Church to be pragmatic about its political capital, that brings up the more tricky question: what is worth the Church spending its political capital on? 

Here I’ll have to admit some sympathy with the idea that the “moral issues” differentiator the Church uses is too broad and vague to be helpful; unless you’re arguing about which broadband auction pricing strategies would be most effective, pretty much everything can be seen through the lens of a moral issue. 

Why Doesn’t the Church Use Its Political Capital For Helping the Poor? 

The Church takes positions on issues that you can basically categorize into two groups: categorical non-economic, social issues (basically, gambling, sex and gender issues, abortion, and drugs), and those directly relevant to the Church like the MX missile. (I would actually put immigration in the latter category as well. If we actually did get a widespread deportation it would eviscerate large swaths of the Church in the US.) 

In terms of the former, to paraphrase the Savior, how high the marginal tax rate should be for higher income brackets will always be with us, and it’s easy to say things like “the Church should advocate more for helping the poor,” but that’s not as straightforward as some make it out to be. Same thing with medical care.

There are always tradeoffs. We quickly reach a sort of Sorites paradox situation. We can say that the Church should be against “grinding the faces of the poor,” What exactly is “grinding the faces of the poor”? Is it a 9% interest rate? How about a 15% one? A 25% interest rate? And how about the tradeoffs from higher marginal tax rates? Even the political philosopher John Rawls, whose thoughts formed the basis of modern day liberal economic thought, conceded that some inequities may be necessary to have a well-functioning society. How far along this continuum should the Church go? Helping the poor is a nice soundbite, but I see why the Church doesn’t get involved in economic issues as much, nor do I find the argument that Jesus was some sort of a political socialist convincing, render under to Caesar and all that. 

The big issues of economic redistribution and policy are complex and show a lot of variation across time and space, from the Ecuadorian ward mission leader on my mission who was a huge Hugo Chavez fan to the proverbial sovereign citizen libertarian high priest group leader, and I don’t think it’s prudent for the Church to tell the Hugo Chavez fan he’s wrong nor to tell the libertarian sovereign citizen he’s wrong. 

Plus there’s never a lack of energy for economics issues. It’s consistently the top concern of voters. Not only am I skeptical the Church has anything unique or special to say on the issue, but its influence would be rather minimal compared to its potential influence on, say, gambling or abortion, issues that are much farther down the list of voter priorities, but for which a religious organization does have more of a natural say on matters of social behavior.

Categorical Battles

Another pattern that becomes apparent is that the Church has generally taken positions on more reified, clear, this or that. They’re kind of the petticoat suffragettes of the 21st century (there’s a reason prohibition passed around the same time as the women’s right to vote). Against legalized gambling, against legalized marijuana, if we go back far enough against alcohol, against gay marriage, and then against anti-gay employment discrimination. It doesn’t do continuum issues like marginal tax rates as much as categorical ones, and I think that’s wise so that Church doesn’t get bogged down in, they went up to level five, but why not six, or four? 

Conclusion

And then of course there’s the question of whether they’re the right social issues or whether the Church is on the right side, but that’s another post or twenty since it varies depending on the issue, and I want to avoid this OP becoming a back-and-forth over well-tread ground about particular issues; here I’m speaking on a meta level.   

Specific legislation, ballot measures, and government proposals

 

Year(s)	Issue	Official Church position
1976–1982	Equal Rights Amendment	Opposed ratification of the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. The Church’s opposition began in 1976; a 1978 First Presidency letter restated its position and encouraged members to work against ratification. (USU Digital Exhibits)
1981	MX missile basing	The First Presidency opposed the proposed basing system for MX nuclear missiles in Utah and Nevada. Its position concerned the proposed deployment, not a general prohibition on nuclear weapons. (mormonr.org)
1986	Government-sponsored lotteries	Issued a statement opposing the legalization of government-sponsored lotteries, expressing concern about their effects on vulnerable people. (Los Angeles Times)
1992	Utah gambling proposals	Reaffirmed opposition to proposals for a state lottery, charitable gambling, and pari-mutuel betting. The statement was distributed to Utah legislators and Church leaders; opposition to horse-race betting also figured in the subsequent ballot campaign. (Church News)
1998	Hawaii and Alaska marriage amendments	Supported Hawaii Amendment 2, which gave the legislature authority to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, and Alaska Measure 2, which defined marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman. (Church News)
2000	California Proposition 22	Supported the “Knight Initiative,” which restricted California’s recognition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. (Church News)
2004 and 2006	Federal marriage amendment	Supported a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Church issued statements in 2004 and joined other religious leaders in a renewed call in 2006. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
2008	California Proposition 8 and Arizona marriage amendment	Supported constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the Church encouraged members to participate in the Proposition 8 campaign; it also encouraged members in Arizona to support a coalition for that state’s amendment. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2009	Salt Lake City nondiscrimination ordinances	Supported ordinances protecting people from discrimination in housing and employment, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. A Church representative presented the position to the city council. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2015	Utah Senate Bill 296	Supported the statewide compromise extending LGBT protections in housing and employment while including protections for religious organizations and religious freedom. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2016	Utah medical-marijuana legislation	Urged a cautious approach to proposed legislation, calling for further study and safeguards against misuse. Contemporary reporting described the Church as opposing a particular medical-marijuana bill. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2016	Recreational-marijuana and assisted-suicide ballot measures	First Presidency letters urged opposition to recreational-marijuana measures in Arizona, California, and Nevada, and to a medically assisted-suicide measure. The reporting identifies the marijuana measures as Arizona Proposition 205, California Proposition 64, and Nevada Question 2; it does not identify the assisted-suicide measure in the excerpt I reviewed, so I would want to verify its designation before treating this row as complete. (The Salt Lake Tribune)
2018	Utah Proposition 2, medical cannabis	Opposed Proposition 2 and urged Utah voters to vote no. At the same time, it said it did not object to prescribed medical marijuana dispensed in dosage form through a licensed pharmacy. It later supported a legislative compromise while maintaining its opposition to Proposition 2. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2019	Federal Fairness for All Act	Endorsed legislation intended to combine LGBT nondiscrimination protections with religious-freedom protections. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2022	Respect for Marriage Act	Supported the federal act after religious-freedom protections were incorporated. The act provided federal recognition for qualifying same-sex and interracial marriages; the Church said its religious doctrine on marriage remained unchanged. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

Broader public-policy positions

 

Year(s)	Issue	Official Church position
2011	Immigration reform	Called for a balanced approach combining compassion, family unity, and respect for law. It expressed concern that state legislation containing only enforcement provisions would fall short of that standard. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2018	DACA and Dreamers	Called on national leaders to create policies offering hope and opportunity to immigrants brought to the United States as children. The statement did not specify a particular bill. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2018	Family separation at the U.S.–Mexico border	Reaffirmed that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together, addressing the separation of migrant families. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2024	Abortion and state ballot initiatives	Reaffirmed its opposition to elective abortion for personal or social convenience and said members could participate in efforts to protect life and religious liberty. Its statement referred to current state initiatives but did not endorse or oppose a named ballot measure. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
2025	Immigration	Reiterated principles of love, obedience to law, and family unity, and communicated guidance to U.S. local leaders. This reaffirmed earlier principles rather than endorsing a named bill. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)