Follow LDS counsel: Study issues

Each election season, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issues a statement urging church members to "study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully." They also remind members that it is their obligation to "seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity" and to support people who are "wise, good and honest."

This counsel is explicit in urging members to find out about candidates, examine the issues and exercise good judgment after an analysis of who the candidates are and what positions they hold. The statement implies that people who engage in such a thoughtful approach are following the counsel of church leaders.

Yet, on average, about 40 percent of Utah voters vote straight party ticket, with the vast majority of those voting Republican. They take a couple of seconds to find the straight party lever and then they're done. No need to "study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully" or look for leaders "who will act with integrity." They just vote for whoever the party offers up to them. In all likelihood it will happen again in November.

Nor can it be suggested that those 40 percent are not LDS members. Seventy percent of Utah is LDS. And an even higher percentage of the electorate is LDS since LDS Church members typically vote.

Why do so many LDS Church members so blatantly ignore the directions of the First Presidency? Is it because one party has the blessing of the church and therefore voting for any and all candidates from that party is the equivalent of studying the candidates?

That is not a message that comes from the First Presidency. Again and again, the First Presidency has proclaimed the church's political neutrality. Do they say this with a "wink and a nod" that communicates something different? Some members may think that, but the First Presidency's actions in actually remaining neutral would suggest otherwise.

Is it because all of the church leaders are Republicans? No, that's not true either. Over time, many prominent church leaders also have been Democrats, including President Hugh B. Brown, President Heber J. Grant and Elder B.H. Roberts. In fact, in the 1950s, President Hinckley even wrote a sympathetic biography of James Moyle, a prominent Mormon Democrat.

So, was that then but now is different? One difference is church leaders today are less likely to be openly political than a generation ago. But the First Presidency does want to convey the impression that the Republican Party does not have some special relationship with the church. One example is the fact that a few years ago Elder Marlin Jensen of the Seventy was placed in the spotlight to show that not only could one be a good Mormon and a loyal Democrat, one could be a general authority of the church and a loyal Democrat! Also, President Hinckley stated at the National Press Club a few years ago that members could be loyal Democrats and good members of the church.

Moreover, the church at times has taken positions closer to those held in the platforms of the Democratic Party. For example, while the Republican Party favored allowing people to take their concealed weapon wherever they want, the Democratic Party and the LDS Church's position has been that guns have no place in houses of worship.

Is it the case that the Republican Party always offers people who are worthy of our vote? That is absurd on its face, even without recent scandals involving Republican officeholders.

Again, as members of the LDS Church, we will face the ballot box in a few weeks. Now is the time to decide what will we do -- take a few seconds and mindlessly vote a straight party ticket, be it Republican or Democratic -- or "study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully."

Richard Davis is a political science professor at Brigham Young University.

Copyright C 2004 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.