The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and politics in the United States

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has intersected with United States politics from its inception, beginning with founder Joseph Smith's candidacy for president in 1844 amid religious persecution and calls for national reform on issues like slavery and governance.^[1][2] Today, the institution upholds a policy of political neutrality, declining to endorse parties, candidates, or take sides in conflicts while encouraging members to participate in elections and civic discourse guided by conscience and doctrine.^[3][4] Despite official neutrality, LDS Church members, who number over 6.8 million in the U.S., predominantly align with conservative positions on family, religious liberty, and limited government, exerting outsized influence in the Intermountain West.^[5] In Utah, where Latter-day Saints comprise about 60% of the population, they hold nearly all congressional seats and a supermajority in the state legislature, embedding church-aligned values into policies on education, alcohol laws, and social welfare.^[6] The Church has selectively mobilized on moral imperatives, most prominently in the 2008 California Proposition 8 campaign, where it urged members to support amending the state constitution to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman, contributing financially and organizationally to its passage amid ensuing national backlash and legal challenges.^[7][8] This episode highlighted tensions between institutional advocacy and neutrality claims, while prominent Latter-day Saint politicians like Mitt Romney and Mike Lee have advanced GOP agendas at federal levels, underscoring the faith's enduring political footprint.^[9]

Doctrinal Foundations for Political Engagement

Scriptural and Theological Views on Government and Law

Latter-day Saint theology posits that governments are instituted by God for the benefit of humanity, holding individuals accountable for their actions toward such institutions, as articulated in Doctrine and Covenants 134:1.^[10] This revelation, adopted unanimously by the church on August 17, 1835, emphasizes that civil officers should be honored and upheld for their role in preserving peace and administering justice, while religious societies should focus on moral and spiritual matters rather than dictating civil policy.^[10] It further declares that no one should be coerced in matters of conscience or worship, underscoring the separation of religious exercise from governmental compulsion, though governments must punish violations of public peace or rights.^[10] Central to these views is the belief that the United States Constitution was divinely established, as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 101:80, where God declares He raised up wise men for this purpose and redeemed the land through bloodshed to prepare it for the gospel's restoration. This revelation, given February 24, 1833, frames constitutional law as a safeguard for rights and privileges essential to human freedom, binding upon church members insofar as it aligns with principles of liberty. Doctrine and Covenants 98:5–6 reinforces this by instructing Saints to "befriend the constitutional law of the land" and importune for redress of grievances through legal channels, affirming a duty to support just governance while reserving the right to oppose tyranny via established processes.^[11] The twelfth Article of Faith encapsulates obedience as a core tenet: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," reflecting a theological commitment to civic loyalty that enables moral agency and the free exercise of religion. In the Book of Mormon, narratives such as King Mosiah's establishment of judges by popular consent (Mosiah 29:25–27) illustrate divinely approved systems where the "voice of the people" selects leaders, provided they uphold righteousness and liberty, warning against kingship's potential for corruption if the populace becomes wicked. These scriptural precedents inform a theology where government serves to protect inalienable rights, including religious freedom, fostering conditions for voluntary adherence to divine law rather than coercion.^[12] Theologically, this framework distinguishes between ecclesiastical authority, which governs spiritual matters, and civil law, which maintains societal order without infringing on conscience, as per Doctrine and Covenants 134:4 and 9.^[10] Church leaders interpret these principles to mandate participation in democratic processes to defend constitutional freedoms, viewing the U.S. founding documents as providential tools for the church's mission, though not endorsing partisan politics.^[13] Ultimate sovereignty rests with God, with earthly governments as provisional stewards accountable to divine standards of justice and equity.^[14]

Moral Imperatives Influencing Civic Participation

The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints emphasize civic participation as a moral obligation tied to the eternal principle of agency, whereby individuals are accountable to God for using their moral agency to promote just laws and societal good. This imperative derives from scriptural mandates, including the twelfth Article of Faith, which affirms belief in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," extending to proactive defense of constitutional principles and participation in governance to prevent moral decay. Doctrine and Covenants 134 further delineates government's role in securing rights to life, liberty, and property while prohibiting interference with religious conscience, framing civic engagement as essential to preserving divine order against tyranny or vice.^[10] Church leaders reinforce this through directives urging members to vote and engage civically, guided by conscience informed by prophetic counsel on moral absolutes such as the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and self-reliance. A June 1, 2023, First Presidency letter instructed members to "participate in the political process" by studying candidates and issues, explicitly rejecting voting by tradition or party loyalty alone, while basing decisions on principles like those in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," which defines marriage and gender as eternal and opposes redefinitions threatening family structure. This has manifested in heightened participation on issues perceived as moral threats, such as the church's 2008 mobilization of members to support California's Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, reflecting a doctrinal imperative to safeguard procreative family units as foundational to society.^[15][16] Religious freedom emerges as a paramount moral imperative, with apostles like Dallin H. Oaks asserting that defending the free exercise of religion aligns with scriptural calls to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things," compelling members to advocate against encroachments like secular mandates overriding conscience. This has influenced participation in coalitions for "fairness for all" legislation balancing nondiscrimination with religious protections, as outlined in church statements prioritizing empirical protection of vulnerable institutions over abstract equity claims. Such imperatives foster high voter turnout among members—often exceeding national averages in Utah—and public service, with doctrines linking personal righteousness to communal welfare, as in welfare principles promoting voluntary charity over coercive redistribution to avoid eroding agency.^[17][18][19] ![Yes on Prop 8 yard sign][float-right]
These moral drivers distinguish Latter-day Saint civic action from partisan loyalty, prioritizing causal links between policy and eternal outcomes like family stability and moral agency, even amid institutional neutrality on parties. Empirical data from Pew Research indicates Latter-day Saints report higher rates of voting (86% in 2020 presidential election) and community involvement, attributable to teachings framing nonparticipation as dereliction of stewardship.

19th-Century Conflicts and Theocratic Aspirations

Joseph Smith's Political Initiatives and Persecution

In Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith served as mayor from May 1842, wielding significant civil authority alongside his religious leadership.^[20] He was also appointed lieutenant general of the Nauvoo Legion, a city militia chartered by the Illinois legislature in 1840 with up to 3,000 men, which bolstered Mormon self-defense amid ongoing threats but alarmed non-Mormon neighbors.^[21] These roles enabled Smith to enact policies reflecting his vision of a theocratic community, including ordinances granting broad municipal powers that critics viewed as consolidating unchecked authority.^[20] Dissatisfied with the U.S. government's failure to redress Mormon grievances from Missouri expulsions, Smith organized the Council of Fifty in March 1844 as a secretive governing body to establish a kingdom of God on earth, independent of flawed democratic systems, in preparation for Christ's millennial reign.^[22] The council, comprising about 50 members including church leaders and non-Mormons, deliberated on political strategies, petitioned for redress, and symbolically enacted laws, embodying Smith's aspiration for a theocratic polity that prioritized divine law over secular constitutions.^[23] Concurrently, on February 4, 1844, Smith declared his candidacy for U.S. President, outlining a platform in General Smith's Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States that called for gradual abolition of slavery, prison reform, and military annexation of Oregon and Texas to expand territory for settling western refugees like the Saints.^[1] He dispatched missionaries to campaign, framing the bid as a prophetic critique of national corruption rather than mere partisanship.^[24] These initiatives intensified local hostilities, as Smith's expanding influence—perceived as blending church and state—fueled fears of Mormon domination in Illinois. On June 7, 1844, the Nauvoo Expositor published a single issue denouncing Smith's theocratic ambitions, polygamous practices, and political maneuvers, prompting the Nauvoo City Council, with Smith as mayor, to declare it a public nuisance and order its press destroyed on June 10 to suppress what they deemed libelous sedition threatening community order.^[25] This action, legally grounded in Nauvoo’s charter but resembling prior Missouri press suppressions, provoked treason charges and an arrest warrant for riot; Smith initially mobilized the Nauvoo Legion under martial law but surrendered on June 25, 1844, to Carthage Jail alongside his brother Hyrum and others, amid escalating mob threats.^[26] On June 27, 1844, approximately 200 armed men, their faces painted black, stormed Carthage Jail, killing Joseph Smith (aged 38) and Hyrum (aged 44) with gunfire while wounding companions John Taylor and Willard Richards; Smith reportedly exclaimed, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter," viewing his death as martyrdom for his testimony and reforms.^[27] The assassinations, unprosecuted despite indictments, stemmed from cumulative resentments over Smith's political-religious fusion, which challenged frontier power dynamics and exposed limits of legal protections for dissenting communities.^[28]

Utah Territory Governance and Polygamy's Political Ramifications

The Utah Territory was formally organized on September 9, 1850, by act of the U.S. Congress, encompassing a vast region including much of the present-day western United States. Brigham Young, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and de facto leader of the Mormon pioneers who had settled the area after their exodus from Nauvoo, Illinois, was appointed the territory's first governor by President Millard Fillmore on February 3, 1851, a position he held until April 12, 1858.^[29][30] Young's governance integrated ecclesiastical authority with civil administration, as the Mormon population constituted the overwhelming majority of residents and controlled the territorial legislature, which convened its first session in 1851 and enacted laws reflecting church doctrines on land distribution, militia organization, and social order.^[31] This structure fostered perceptions of theocracy, with Young exercising veto power and directing policies through church councils, including the allocation of water rights and economic cooperatives that prioritized communal welfare over individual property claims.^[32] Polygamy, publicly endorsed by Young as a restored biblical practice during an August 29, 1852, address to church leaders, became a flashpoint amplifying federal suspicions of Utah's governance as antithetical to American republicanism.^[33] The practice, involving an estimated 20-30% of Mormon families by the 1850s, was defended doctrinally as essential for exaltation but viewed nationally as moral degeneracy akin to slavery—the "twin relics of barbarism" decried in the 1856 Republican Party platform.^[34] Initial federal responses included the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of July 1, 1862, which criminalized polygamy in U.S. territories, voided the territorial legislature's prior incorporation of the LDS Church, and capped church real estate holdings at $50,000 to curb its economic and political influence.^[33] Enforcement lagged amid the Civil War, but subsequent laws intensified: the Poland Act of 1874 expanded federal judicial oversight in Utah, enabling non-Mormon prosecutors and juries.^[35] The Edmunds Act of March 22, 1882, escalated ramifications by classifying polygamy as a felony punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and $500 fine, while introducing the misdemeanor of "unlawful cohabitation" for easier prosecution without proving formal marriage; it also disenfranchised individuals practicing or upholding polygamy from voting, jury service, or public office, effectively nullifying Mormon electoral dominance in the territory.^[35][36] Over 200 Mormon men were convicted under these provisions by 1885, with church leaders like apostles going into hiding or exile, disrupting governance as territorial officials faced loyalty oaths and federal appointees supplanted local control.^[35] The Edmunds-Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, further dismantled the theocratic framework by dissolving the church's legal entity, seizing assets exceeding $50,000 (including temples), annulling Mormon women's suffrage (previously granted in 1870), and mandating anti-polygamy affidavits for all voters, prompting widespread underground resistance but ultimately pressuring the church toward capitulation for statehood prospects.^[36] These measures, rooted in congressional resolve to eradicate what was seen as a threat to monogamous family norms and democratic pluralism, delayed Utah's admission as a state until 1896, contingent on abandoning polygamy via the 1890 Manifesto.^[31]

Path to Utah Statehood and Institutional Reforms

The Utah Territory, organized by the U.S. Congress on September 9, 1850, was governed by Brigham Young as both territorial governor and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1851 to 1857, fostering a theocratic system where ecclesiastical authority intertwined with civil administration, prompting federal apprehensions over limited non-Mormon influence and reports of insubordination.^[37] Tensions culminated in the Utah War of 1857–1858, a non-violent military standoff where President James Buchanan dispatched approximately 2,500 federal troops to install a new governor, Alfred Cumming, amid exaggerated claims of Mormon rebellion, resulting in Young's temporary surrender of civil authority while retaining de facto control through the Nauvoo Legion militia.^[38] The public revelation of plural marriage by Young in 1852 further alienated federal officials, framing Mormon society as incompatible with national norms and obstructing statehood petitions submitted as early as 1849 and repeatedly thereafter. Federal legislation intensified pressure to dismantle polygamy and church dominance. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 criminalized plural marriage and limited church property holdings to $50,000, though enforcement remained sporadic until the Edmunds Act of March 22, 1882, which felony-ized unlawful cohabitation, disenfranchised polygamists from voting or holding office, and authorized federal prosecutors to pursue over 1,000 convictions by the mid-1880s.^[33] The Edmunds-Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, escalated measures by disincorporating the church corporation, confiscating assets exceeding $50,000 (seizing properties valued at around $800,000), revoking women's suffrage in Utah (granted territorially in 1870), and mandating loyalty oaths for jurors and voters, effectively crippling the church's economic and political infrastructure.^[31] These acts, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States (1889), reflected congressional intent to compel assimilation, with over 200 church leaders imprisoned by 1889.^[39] Faced with existential threats, church president Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto on September 25, 1890, declaring that the church would cease authorizing new plural marriages to align with U.S. laws, a pragmatic revelation he attributed to divine instruction amid visions of potential church dissolution.^[40] This concession prompted federal amnesty for polygamists in 1893, restoration of disenfranchised rights, and congressional reenactment of the church's corporate charter on October 9, 1893, enabling asset recovery and institutional stabilization.^[41] The Utah Commission verified declining polygamous practices, paving the way for the Utah Enabling Act of July 16, 1894, which conditioned statehood on a constitution prohibiting polygamy and affirming religious freedom without theocratic governance.^[42] The 1895 constitutional convention, influenced by church counsel to members to ratify the document, produced a framework banning polygamy under penalty of disenfranchisement and establishing separation of church and state, ratified by voters on November 5, 1895, with 31,324 in favor and 14,168 opposed.^[42] Utah achieved statehood as the 45th state on January 4, 1896, under President Grover Cleveland, marking the culmination of reforms that subordinated ecclesiastical political power to federal constitutional norms, dissolved the church-aligned People's Party in 1891, and encouraged bipartisan participation to demonstrate loyalty.^[43] These changes, while preserving core doctrines privately, facilitated mainstream integration by prioritizing legal compliance over doctrinal absolutism on marriage practices.^[44]

Establishment of Political Neutrality (Late 19th–Early 20th Century)

Manifesto Against Polygamy and Federal Reconciliation

In the late 1880s, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faced severe federal opposition due to its practice of plural marriage, culminating in the Edmunds-Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, which disincorporated the church's legal entity in Utah Territory, seized assets exceeding $50,000, annulled marriages not solemnized under civil law, and disenfranchised all Utah women to suppress polygamous cohabitation.^[44] This legislation intensified earlier antipolygamy measures, such as the Edmunds Act of 1882, which imposed felony penalties for plural marriage and restricted voting rights for those affiliated with it, leading to over 1,000 indictments and the imprisonment of church leaders including apostles.^[44] By 1890, with church temples closed, properties confiscated, and statehood prospects stalled, President Wilford Woodruff determined that continuing plural marriage threatened the institution's survival, prompting him to seek divine guidance.^[44] On September 25, 1890, Woodruff issued the Manifesto, officially titled "Official Declaration 1," declaring that the church would cease teaching or authorizing plural marriage and affirming obedience to U.S. laws against it.^[44] The document stated: "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice," and emphasized submission to civil authority as a religious duty, framed as a revelation received after Woodruff's prayers regarding the church's predicament. Presented at the 60th Semiannual General Conference on October 6, 1890, it was unanimously sustained by the church membership as authoritative, marking a pivotal doctrinal shift from the 1843 revelation on plural marriage in Doctrine and Covenants Section 132.^[44] This action addressed federal demands, as the U.S. government had conditioned Utah's statehood on the abandonment of polygamy, viewing it as incompatible with republican institutions.^[45] The Manifesto's issuance facilitated federal reconciliation by demonstrating the church's willingness to comply with national laws, leading to the return of confiscated properties valued at approximately $400,000 through court rulings in 1891 and the resumption of temple ordinances under legal scrutiny.^[44] It paved the way for Utah's admission as the 45th state on January 4, 1896, after the territorial legislature ratified an enabling act in 1894 that included a constitutional ban on polygamy and bigamy, enforced via a "test oath" for voters and officials.^[44] While some unauthorized plural marriages persisted into the early 1900s, prompting a 1904 clarification by President Joseph F. Smith, the 1890 Manifesto fundamentally resolved the polygamy impasse, enabling the church to transition from theocratic isolation to integration within American political norms.^[44]

Reed Smoot Hearings and Mainstream Acceptance

In 1903, Reed Smoot, an apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was elected as a Republican U.S. senator from Utah, prompting immediate protests from over 50 petitioners, including religious leaders and women's groups, who argued that his ecclesiastical role and the church's history of polygamy rendered him unfit for office under Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits religious tests but raised questions about divided loyalties.^[46] The Senate responded by launching an investigation on January 27, 1904, with hearings commencing on January 16, 1904, before a special committee chaired by Senator Julius C. Burrows, examining Smoot's eligibility over allegations of the church's potential theocratic influence, ongoing plural marriages despite the 1890 Manifesto, secret temple oaths, and doctrines like blood atonement.^[46][47] The proceedings, spanning from 1904 to 1907 and generating approximately 3,500 pages of testimony from over 100 witnesses—including church leaders like President Joseph F. Smith, who affirmed the end of polygamy under penalty of excommunication—intensely scrutinized Mormon doctrines and practices, revealing persistent post-Manifesto plural marriages that led to the church's issuance of a stronger Second Manifesto in 1904 and subsequent excommunications to demonstrate compliance with U.S. law.^[48][47] Critics, drawing on 19th-century perceptions of Mormonism as un-American due to its hierarchical structure and past territorial ambitions, portrayed the church as a potential threat to republican government, while defenders emphasized Smoot's personal monogamy, loyalty to the Constitution, and the church's post-statehood reforms.^[49] The hearings, though not a formal trial, functioned as a national referendum on Mormon integration, amplifying media coverage and public debate that gradually shifted from outright hostility toward pragmatic accommodation amid Progressive Era expansions in religious pluralism.^[46] On February 20, 1907, after the committee recommended against seating Smoot in June 1906, the full Senate voted 43-27 to affirm his right to the seat, falling short of the two-thirds majority required for expulsion and allowing him to serve until 1933.^[46] This outcome marked a pivotal step in the mainstream political acceptance of Latter-day Saints, validating their participation in national governance and compelling the church to decisively eradicate vestiges of polygamy, thereby aligning more fully with American norms of monogamy and civic loyalty.^[49][48] The resolution eased federal scrutiny, facilitated Utah's economic and social reintegration, and set a precedent for religious minorities' eligibility in public office, though it underscored ongoing tensions over church-state separation that persisted in public discourse.^[50]

20th-Century Adaptation and Selective Advocacy

Formalization of Institutional Neutrality

In the mid- to late 20th century, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints codified its institutional political neutrality as a deliberate policy to separate ecclesiastical authority from partisan affiliations, building on earlier reforms following Utah statehood. This formalization emphasized that the Church, as an institution, would neither endorse nor oppose political parties, candidates, or platforms, while still permitting advocacy on moral issues affecting family, religious liberty, or core doctrines when such matters intersected with public policy.^[51] The policy aimed to foster member civic engagement without leveraging Church resources or influence for electoral advantage, reflecting a strategic adaptation to the Church's expanding national and international presence amid growing U.S. political polarization.^[3] A pivotal milestone occurred in 1980, when the First Presidency issued a formal statement explicitly prohibiting the Church from endorsing parties or candidates, a directive that remains operative. This declaration reinforced prior practices, such as the requirement for General Authorities to obtain approval for political candidacies established in the 1896 Political Manifesto, but elevated neutrality to a comprehensive institutional standard applicable across all levels of Church leadership.^[51] The 1980 policy explicitly barred the use of Church buildings, funds, or membership lists for political campaigns and instructed leaders against directing members' votes or influencing elected officials on partisan grounds.^[3] This formalization coincided with the Church's post-World War II growth, during which membership surged from approximately 1 million in 1950 to over 2 million by 1978, necessitating clearer boundaries to avoid perceptions of theocratic overreach in a pluralistic democracy.^[51] Subsequent clarifications in the late 20th and early 21st centuries further institutionalized this neutrality. In June 2011, the First Presidency restated the policy in a letter to Church leaders, prohibiting General Authorities, General Officers, mission presidents, and temple presidents from participating in political campaigns and reiterating that neutrality applies universally regardless of members' personal affiliations.^[3] These guidelines, integrated into the Church's General Handbook, underscore that while individual members are urged to vote, serve in public office, and engage civically—guided by conscience and doctrine—the institution itself maintains detachment from electoral politics to preserve its religious mission.^[3] Exceptions for moral advocacy, such as opposition to certain amendments or social policies, were delineated as non-partisan, focusing on principles like the sanctity of life and marriage rather than party platforms.^[51] This formalized neutrality has been periodically reaffirmed, as in updates to the Church's official statements in 2023, which added emphases on respectful discourse and warned against voting by tradition or straight-party tickets in Church settings.^[3] Critics from within and outside the faith have noted tensions, arguing that selective interventions on issues like prohibition repeal in 1933 or later moral campaigns blur lines, yet the policy's core—non-endorsement of partisanship—has endured as a hallmark of institutional restraint, enabling the Church to navigate U.S. politics without alienating diverse membership or inviting federal scrutiny akin to the 19th-century era.^[51][3]

Interventions in Moral and Prohibition-Era Issues

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints endorsed national Prohibition in the early 20th century, consistent with the health code in Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, known as the Word of Wisdom, which advised against strong drinks since its revelation in 1833.^[52] By the 1910s, as temperance gained momentum nationwide, church leaders including apostles Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay participated in advocacy campaigns, urging members to support bans on alcohol production and sales.^[53] Grant, in particular, emerged as a prominent lobbyist for Prohibition, viewing it as a moral imperative to curb societal ills associated with alcohol.^{[54] [55]} Utah, with its majority Latter-day Saint population, played a pivotal role in enacting Prohibition, ratifying the 18th Amendment on January 20, 1919, as the 36th state, thereby enabling its nationwide enforcement starting January 17, 1920.^[54] Although some church members opposed the measure due to preferences for local control over vice, institutional leadership aligned with prohibitionists, contributing to Utah's dry stance despite internal divisions.^[54] The church's involvement extended beyond endorsement; leaders coordinated with organizations like the Anti-Saloon League, framing alcohol abstinence as essential to personal and communal righteousness.^[53] Following the repeal of Prohibition via the 21st Amendment, ratified by Utah on December 5, 1933, the church opposed the change, with President Heber J. Grant publicly decrying it as a step toward moral decline and predicting increased social problems.^[56] In response, Grant reinforced internal adherence by incorporating strict Word of Wisdom observance—abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea—into temple recommend interviews around 1921, elevating it from advisory to mandatory for full fellowship.^{[54] [57]} This policy shift served as a direct institutional intervention to preserve moral standards against encroaching cultural liberalization.^[55] The church also maintained opposition to other vices during this period, such as gambling, which leaders condemned as destructive to family stability and self-reliance, though specific coordinated campaigns mirrored less those against alcohol.^[58] In Utah, longstanding prohibitions on gambling persisted into the 1920s, reflecting church influence, until brief allowances for horse betting emerged before stricter controls resumed.^[59] These efforts underscored the church's selective political engagement on issues deemed core to doctrinal ethics, even amid professed partisan neutrality.^[54]

21st-Century Influence and Partisan Realities

Voting Patterns and Republican Alignment

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints demonstrate the strongest Republican alignment among major U.S. religious groups, with 75% identifying as or leaning Republican in a 2024 Pew Research Center survey of registered voters.^[60] This partisan preference, which has held steady from earlier measurements like 70% in 2014-2015 data, arises from congruence between church teachings on family, morality, and self-reliance and core Republican positions on issues such as opposition to abortion and defense of traditional marriage.^[61] In states with dense Latter-day Saint populations like Utah, this manifests in lopsided Republican majorities, with the party dominating elections since the mid-20th century due to the demographic's numerical concentration and cultural conservatism.^[60] Presidential voting patterns underscore this trend, though with fluctuations tied to candidate appeal. In 2024, exit polls showed 64% of Latter-day Saints supporting Donald Trump against 32% for Kamala Harris, comprising about 4% of the national electorate.^[62] In 2020, roughly two-thirds backed Trump over Joe Biden, though younger members and people of color within the church favored Biden at higher rates.^[63] Support dipped in 2016 to approximately 53% for Trump amid concerns over his personal conduct, per Cooperative Election Study data, before rebounding in subsequent cycles.^[64] The church maintains institutional neutrality, directing members since 1992 to prioritize conscience over party in voting, yet empirical patterns reveal minimal Democratic inroads nationally—around 23% lean Democratic per Pew metrics.^[60] Some surveys indicate modest erosion in Republican self-identification, potentially to 58%, alongside rising Trump favorability, but these shifts remain marginal and regionally concentrated, such as among Arizona's Latter-day Saints where Democrats eye gains in swing districts.^[65] Overall, the alignment persists as a function of value overlap rather than institutional directive, with deviations often linked to individual qualms over candidate character rather than policy divergence.^[66]

Electoral Impact in Western Swing States

Latter-day Saints represent approximately 6% of Arizona's population and 6% of Nevada's, with concentrations in suburban areas such as Mesa and Gilbert in Arizona and Las Vegas suburbs in Nevada, enabling bloc voting that can influence tight races in these swing states.^[67] Their consistently high voter turnout—often exceeding 80% in general elections—amplifies this effect, as church teachings emphasize civic participation and moral governance, leading members to vote at rates higher than the state averages of around 70%.^[68][69] In the 2016 presidential election, despite widespread reservations about Donald Trump's personal character among Latter-day Saints—who prioritize family values and ethical leadership—approximately 65-70% still supported him in Arizona and Nevada, contributing to his victories in both states by margins of 91,234 votes in Arizona and 27,863 in Nevada.^[70][71] This support aligned with the group's broader conservative leanings on issues like immigration and religious liberty, though independent or third-party voting reached 20-25% in Utah-adjacent areas, signaling potential volatility.^[72] The 2020 election highlighted fractures, as Trump garnered only about 60-65% of the Latter-day Saint vote nationally and similarly in swing states, down from Mitt Romney's 70-80% in 2012, due to concerns over Trump's rhetoric and handling of COVID-19 policies conflicting with church emphases on personal responsibility.^[73] In Arizona, this softened support in Mormon-heavy Maricopa County precincts helped Joe Biden secure a 10,457-vote win, with analysts attributing 5,000-10,000 potential Republican defections or abstentions to the group's moral qualms.^[70] Nevada saw a parallel dynamic, with Biden's 33,596-vote margin linked to lower enthusiasm in Clark County Mormon communities, where turnout dipped relative to 2016 amid pandemic restrictions and candidate dissatisfaction.^[66] By 2024, Latter-day Saint voters reverted toward stronger Republican alignment, with exit polls showing 64% support for Trump versus 32% for Kamala Harris nationally, though Arizona and Nevada subsets mirrored this with some persistent unease over Trump's style prompting targeted Democratic outreach to Mormon women on education and family policies.^[62] Trump's wins in both states—by 4.5% in Arizona and narrower in Nevada—owed partly to mobilized conservative turnout on abortion and border security, issues resonating with church positions against expansive federal overreach.^[74][75] Down-ballot, the group's influence sustains GOP holds in congressional districts like Arizona's 6th, where Mormon voters bolstered figures like Juan Ciscomani amid razor-thin margins.^[76] In Colorado, with Latter-day Saints at about 2% of the population, their impact is more diffuse but aids Republican efforts in western slope counties, reinforcing conservative majorities on state ballot measures like parental rights initiatives, though the state overall trends Democratic.^[77] Overall, while the church maintains official political neutrality, members' empirical voting patterns—rooted in doctrinal conservatism—have tipped scales in presidential and senatorial contests by 2-5% swings in targeted precincts, underscoring their role as a reliable yet occasionally independent force in western electorates.^[78]

Official Positions on Family, Life, and Religious Liberty

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains doctrinal positions that prioritize the traditional family structure, the sanctity of human life from conception, and the protection of religious freedom as fundamental to its teachings and public advocacy. Central to the Church's stance on family is "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on September 23, 1995. This document declares that "marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan of happiness" and that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."^[16] It further asserts that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity," emphasizing complementary roles of husbands and wives as equal partners in nurturing posterity.^[16] These principles have guided the Church's opposition to legal redefinitions of marriage, as evidenced by its mobilization of members to support California's Proposition 8 in 2008, which affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman. While supporting subsequent legislation like the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act to codify protections for religious institutions against compelled recognition of same-sex unions, the Church has upheld its doctrinal commitment to traditional marriage without endorsing alternative family models. On issues of life, the Church affirms the sanctity of human life and opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, viewing the unborn as possessing spiritual identity from conception.^[79] Official guidance permits abortion only in limited exceptional cases, including when pregnancy results from incest or rape, when the mother's life or health is seriously endangered, or when a physician determines that the fetus has severe defects incompatible with life.^[80] Members are counseled against submitting to, performing, encouraging, or arranging such procedures outside these circumstances, with the Church reaffirming this position in statements as recent as October 8, 2024, amid national debates on reproductive laws.^[79] This nuanced approach balances reverence for life with compassion for dire situations, without advocating for unrestricted access or total prohibition.^[81] The Church vigorously defends religious liberty as the "first freedom," advocating for legal safeguards that enable adherents to practice faith without undue government burden. Rooted in its 19th-century experiences of persecution, this position includes support for laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and opposition to measures that compel participation in activities conflicting with doctrine, such as facilitating same-sex weddings.^[82] The institution participates in interfaith coalitions to promote conscience protections and has issued statements emphasizing that religious liberty must coexist with respect for others' rights, provided core beliefs remain uncompromised.^[4] In 2024, amid cultural shifts, the Church reiterated calls for civility and defense of worship freedoms, underscoring that true pluralism requires accommodating diverse convictions rather than enforcing uniformity.^[83]

Intra-Church Political Diversity and Criticisms

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exhibit significant political diversity, though surveys consistently indicate a strong conservative and Republican orientation. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center analysis, 70% of U.S. Mormons identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party, compared to 19% who identified with or leaned Democratic. A 2009 Pew survey found 60% of Mormons describing themselves as conservative, with 27% moderate and only 10% liberal. Recent data from a 2024 Deseret News analysis shows a shift, with self-identified moderates rising to 38% among church members, while conservatives declined from 61% in 2016 to 50%, reflecting growing ideological variation particularly among younger adherents. Church leaders have acknowledged this diversity, emphasizing in official guidance the need to accept differing political views among members while maintaining institutional neutrality.^{[61][84][85][86]} This diversity manifests in tensions over specific issues, such as immigration, environmental policy, and foreign affairs, where progressive-leaning members advocate for positions at odds with the predominant conservative consensus. Younger Latter-day Saints under 30 are notably more likely to identify as politically independent or Democratic, contributing to intra-church debates on topics like refugee aid and climate action. Active members display rising variation in social and political views, with some expressing support for policies emphasizing compassion over strict enforcement, as noted in analyses of church demographics. The church's official stance of political neutrality—prohibiting endorsement of parties or candidates—aims to accommodate this spectrum, yet local wards occasionally experience friction when members inject partisan rhetoric into meetings, prompting handbook directives against such discussions.^[87][88][3] Criticisms from within the church often center on perceived inconsistencies between neutrality claims and selective involvement in moral issues, such as opposition to same-sex marriage or abortion, which some members view as veiled partisanship favoring conservative agendas. During the 1960s–1980s, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson's advocacy for the John Birch Society and anti-communist stances drew opposition from faithful members who argued it politicized church discourse and alienated moderates. More recently, liberal-leaning members have voiced concerns that conservative activism on issues like Proposition 8 in California (2008) exacerbates feelings of marginalization, with some studies suggesting such dynamics contribute to disaffiliation among progressives. Church leaders have responded by cautioning against blind party loyalty, as in 2023 statements urging members to avoid straight-ticket voting and prioritize moral principles over partisanship. These internal critiques highlight causal tensions between doctrinal emphases on family and agency and the empirical reality of uneven political alignment, with some members faulting the institution for insufficiently bridging divides.^{[89][90][91][92]}

Key Political Figures and Institutional Tensions

Prominent Latter-day Saint Politicians

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have held various prominent political offices in the United States, particularly from states with significant church membership such as Utah, Idaho, and Nevada. Early examples include Joseph Smith, the church's founder, who declared his candidacy for U.S. President on January 28, 1844, campaigning on platforms including the gradual abolition of slavery, expansion of the military, and prison reform, though he was assassinated before the election.^[93] Another pivotal figure was Reed Smoot, elected as a Utah Republican to the U.S. Senate in 1902 and seated in 1907 after extended hearings that scrutinized his church apostleship and Mormon practices, marking a key step toward mainstream political acceptance for Latter-day Saints.^[46] In the 20th century, Orrin Hatch served as a Utah Republican Senator from 1977 to 2019, becoming the longest-serving senator from Utah and briefly acting as Senate president pro tempore, influencing legislation on judiciary, health, and intellectual property while maintaining alignment with church values on family issues.^[94] Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat converted to the church in college, represented his state in the Senate from 1987 to 2017, rising to Senate Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015 and playing central roles in passing the Affordable Care Act and advancing Democratic priorities, despite tensions with conservative church members over issues like abortion and gun control; he publicly stated his Democratic affiliation stemmed from Mormon emphases on self-reliance and aid to the poor.^[95][96] The most nationally prominent modern Latter-day Saint politician has been Mitt Romney, a lifelong church member who served as Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, secured the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 (losing to Barack Obama), and represented Utah in the Senate from 2019 to 2025, where he notably voted to convict Donald Trump in both impeachment trials and criticized party shifts on fiscal conservatism.^[97] As of the 119th Congress (2025–2027), nine church members serve, all Republicans comprising 1.7% of Congress despite Latter-day Saints being about 1% of the U.S. population: Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho, since 1999), John Curtis (R-Utah, since 2025), and Mike Lee (R-Utah, since 2011); and Representatives Andy Biggs (R-Arizona, since 2017), Blake Moore (R-Utah, since 2021), Celeste Maloy (R-Utah, since 2023), Mike Kennedy (R-Utah, since 2025), Burgess Owens (R-Utah, since 2021), and Mike Simpson (R-Idaho, since 1999).^[98] Among these, Mike Lee has gained prominence as a constitutional conservative advocating limited government and originalist judicial appointments.^[98] This roster reflects concentrated influence in the Mountain West, with historical figures like Smoot and Hatch facilitating broader integration despite past suspicions of divided loyalties.^[46][98]

Church Responses to Partisan Overreach and Cultural Shifts

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently responded to perceived partisan overreach by reaffirming its institutional political neutrality, emphasizing that its mission is to preach the gospel rather than endorse candidates or parties. In a January 2010 statement, church leaders explicitly rejected interpretations of the "White Horse Prophecy"—a historical attribution to Joseph Smith suggesting a Mormon-led political kingdom—as incompatible with current doctrine, underscoring that the church does not seek to dominate American government or align with any political faction.^[99] This response addressed partisan attempts to invoke early church history for contemporary political leverage, particularly amid speculation during election cycles. Similarly, in October 2024, following public inquiries tying church positions on issues like abortion to partisan support, the First Presidency reiterated neutrality while urging civility and individual moral discernment in voting, without favoring Democrats or Republicans.^[4] In addressing cultural shifts, particularly those challenging traditional doctrines on marriage and family, the church has maintained unyielding adherence to its teachings while advocating for legal safeguards against compelled accommodation. The 1995 Proclamation on the Family, reaffirmed in subsequent statements, declares marriage between a man and a woman as ordained of God, a position unchanged despite the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. In response to post-Obergefell pressures, including threats to religious institutions' tax-exempt status or operations, church leaders like Dallin H. Oaks warned in a 2009 speech of an ongoing "battle over the meaning" of religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution, citing historical precedents where majority cultural views eroded minority protections.^[100] By 2022, amid legislative debates, the church supported the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified same-sex marriage while including provisions to protect religious entities from discrimination lawsuits, framing this as a pragmatic defense of conscience rights without altering doctrinal opposition to same-sex relationships as sinful.^[101][102] Church responses to broader cultural encroachments, such as secularism or identity-based policies, prioritize religious liberty as a bulwark against overreach. In a September 2016 devotional, Oaks advised members to defend freedom of speech and religion during elections, cautioning against partisan vitriol that could undermine pluralistic coexistence, and to find hope in eternal principles over temporal politics.^[103] At the 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit, he stressed extending protections to "all the children of God," arguing that conscience and thought freedoms are essential amid societal pressures for uniformity, without conceding ground on core beliefs like the sanctity of life or traditional gender roles.^[104] These positions reflect a pattern: doctrinal firmness coupled with calls for reciprocal tolerance, as evidenced in ongoing advocacy through coalitions like the First Amendment Defense efforts, where the church partners across ideological lines to counter mandates that could force participation in or subsidization of conflicting practices.^[82] Such responses aim to preserve institutional autonomy amid shifts toward greater state involvement in personal morality, viewing partisan or cultural overreach as threats to the voluntary nature of faith.