… is mostly pretty similar to the old political neutrality policy.
Maybe you heard that on Thursday, the church dropped a revised political neutrality statement. You can find its new statement here.
I was curious how it had changed from the prior version and, as luck would have it, I had created a permalink to the church’s statement on February 25, 2023. (Why? Well, when I wrote my first book, I cited some website and, between citing it and going through to check my citations, it had changed. So now I permalink everything I cite in my books and articles.) You’re welcome to compare the two but, in the interest of making the comparison easier, I also blacklined the two.
What Stayed the Same?
Most of the substance of the church’s political neutrality stayed the same. Notably, the church maintains its explicit policy of not endorsing or opposing political parties, platforms, or candidates. Along those lines, it requests that candidates not imply that the church endorses them or their platforms.
And, while it has done a fair amount of wordsmithing of the section on the church’s relationship with government, the substance is unchanged: Mormon politicians are not subject to the church. They can disagree with each other and with publicly-stated church positions.
This strikes me as a big deal; we’ve seen certain conservative Catholic bishops to try to deny President Biden the Eucharist because of his political policies. (It’s worth noting that Pope Francis disagrees and encouraged Biden to continue to take Communion.) Former NY governor Mario Cuomo was Of Counsel at the law firm I worked for and he talked about the pushback he received for supporting pro-choice policies, which led me to read a speech he gave at Notre Dame explaining the role of religious political leaders.
The church’s political neutrality statement—both its current and prior versions—make it clear that Mormon politicians don’t need to go to the same lengths to navigate their dual responsibilities. Elected government officials “must make their own choices according to their best judgment and considering the constituencies they were elected to represent” on social safety net programs, on abortion, on LGBTQ+ rights, and on any other issue they face.
Small Changes
Speaking of wordsmithing, that accounts for the vast majority of the changes between versions; for instance, the new version takes some softened language and makes it more direct. (The church no longer does not “[a]ttempt to direct its members” on how to vote—now it does not “[a]dvise” us on how to vote.)
Introduction and Conclusion
Perhaps the biggest changes involve the significant reworking of the introduction and the introduction of a conclusion. The new introduction more fully lays out what the church views its role as: it focuses on sharing the gospel, on strengthening individuals and families, and on caring for those in need. To the extent it involves itself in politics, that involvement is ancillary to its primary focuses.
It does not, however, entirely write out the possibility of political involvement. It specifically carves out issues that it believes have moral valence or that affect the church’s ability to pursue its missions as areas where it will involve itself in politics.
The conclusion acknowledges the complexity of the modern world and the difficulty of laying down bright line rules for how the church will engage with the state in that world; rather than hard-and-fast rules, the church says it will seek revelatory guidance.
A Global Perspective
A few years ago, Hawkgrrrl posted about the prior version of the political neutrality statement. One thing she noted was the pullback from international stage. That version changed to focus explicitly on U.S. politics. She wrote of:
an interesting shift away from global perspectives: “As citizens we” becomes “Citizens of the United States.” It’s an interesting possible dig at non-democratic nations, and a reversal of the trend toward presenting messages that apply to all the countries the Church is in and towards focusing just on the US, in a Church that is often rightly accused of being Ameri-centric (and Utah-centric). This change also shifts the language from “we” and “our” to a passive voice. In the revised statement, US (specifically) citizens affect “their” communities and nation, not “our” communities and nation.
With the latest version, the church has shifted back to an international vision. It clarifies that its political neutrality extends, not to party politics, but to politics in and between the various countries of the world. It excises a whole paragraph devoted to what the church does in the U.S. around election time.
There is an odd detail to this internationalism, though: while the new statement adds a section affirmatively claiming the right to provide humanitarian aid throughout the world, including places facing international conflict, it expressly declines to “comment on the conflict itself.” As a friend pointed out, this sounds a little like the church being defensive about not condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
And look, I get it. But if we want to be a Jeremiah on the world stage, the church probably ought to be willing to call out countries’ immoral behavior, especially when that behavior causes international conflicts that require the church to provide humanitarian aid.
That said, I really like the church’s emphasis on “alleviating suffering wherever it is found, regardless of the race, nationality, tribe, political persuasion or religious affiliation of those involved.”
Let Us Speak
Which brings me to the last change I’m going to comment on: the church affirmatively recognizes a right to what it calls “free exercise of conscience,” including the right to express publicly one’s views on societal issues.
It calls this right a universal one; while I have ideas about what prompted the church to add it, taking it at face value (along with its statement that Mormon politicians are not asked to agree with policies that the church has publicly supported) provides the strongest statement of members’ freedom of conscience. Members have, in the past, been excommunicated for publicly opposing church policy. But to the extent the church believes in a universal freedom of conscience, I find it hard to believe that, going forward, church leaders could justify such punitive measures for taking stands that don’t follow church prefernces.
Conclusion
By and large, the changes the church has introduced to its political neutrality statement are marginal and insubstantial. But both the retained and changed text emphasize strongly that the church does not want or expect political fealty, either from Mormon voters or politicians. Rather, we’re responsible for following our own consciences in the voting and legislating booths. The church reserves the right to advocate for itself and its preferences, but, on the terms of the political neutrality statement, its views don’t carry any more weight than the persuasive power of the church’s arguments.
That, of course, was just a quick run through the changes. I’d love to hear what I missed and what you think of the new version. So leave a comment!
Photo by Parker Johnson on Unsplash