- Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
- Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
- Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
- Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
- Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
- Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
- Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
- Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.” see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality
-*So you see, the church saying they are politically neutral. HOWEVER they aren’t morally neutral.
-“We honor our founding fathers of this republic for the same reason. God raised up these patriotic partners to perform their mission, and he called them “wise men.” (see D&C 101:80.) The First Presidency acknowledged that wisdom when they gave us the guideline a few years ago of supporting political candidates “who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Deseret News, November 2, 1964.) .
-“Good candidates, if not supported, will not generally stand again. They may even lose money when not supported. What does this do in the long term? It promotes the lowest common denominator. The candidates grow worse, generally, over time.” ( D.M. Andrews on November 2, 2012, as seen on LDS Liberty Blog in Article “Why You Vote For Someone Matters”, comments section, at http://www.ldsliberty.org/why-you-vote-for-someone-matters/) )
-“”The idea is this: The Lord has never told us we are responsible for making sure a certain someone makes it into the White House as President. The Lord, instead, has commanded that we vote a certain way. When we obey Him and vote that way, we have every right to ask Him to bless our nation. When we take it upon ourselves to vote for the lesser of two evils, or vote for person “x” just so that person “z” doesn’t win, then we are sinning, and will be held accountable. Also the Lord will not bless our nation for it. We have no right to turn to Him and ask for such a blessing. Our faith and trust in God and the miracles that He can bring about, must be stronger than our fear of who will win the presidency. As ETB stated, even if the worse possible candidates wins, the Lord will still bless America MORE, because more people were willing to stand up and vote the right way.
If the Lord promised Abraham to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if Abraham could find peradventure just 10 righteous people, then He can bless America if we can find peradventure a majority of us who are willing to obediently vote in the manner the Lord prescribed (through his scripture but also through His servants). I trust the Lord. Sadly, though, too many people find this paradigm shift too difficult to make. It is the last days for sure.” (Teri on October 12, 2016, as seen on LDS Liberty Blog in Article “Why You Vote For Someone Matters”, comments section, at http://www.ldsliberty.org/why-you-vote-for-someone-matters/)
-“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” (John Quincy Adams As quoted in Pocket Patriot : Quotes From American Heroes (2005) edited by Kelly Nickell)
-“Fortunately we have materials to help us face these threatening dangers in the writings of President David O. McKay and other church leaders. Some other fine sources by LDS authors attempting to awaken and inform us of our duty are: Prophets, Principles, and National Survival (Jerreld L. Newquist), Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen (H. Verlan Andersen), and The Elders of Israel and the Constitution (Jerome Horowitz).” (Ezra Taft Benson, 1972 April General Conference, Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints. See https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1972/04/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng)
-“In the next canvas we shall be influenced by no party consideration…the partisans in this county who expect to divide the friends of humanity and equal rights will find themselves mistakes — we care not a fig for Whig or Democrat; they are both alike to us; but we shall go for our friends, our tried friends, and that cause of human liberty which is the cause of God. We are aware that ‘divide and conquer’ is the watchword with many, but with us it cannot be done — we love too well — we have suffered too much to be easily duped — we have no cat’s paws amongst us.” (Joseph Smith, Times & Seasons – 3:651)
-More commentary from ldsliberty.org about the bad logic of ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’: “Voting for the lesser of two evils is also an anti-enemy approach to politics and is also a form of idolatry. This approach stipulates that A is bad but B is worse, so I will vote against B and accept A. The deception here masks the anti-enemy approach of voting for the lesser of two evils by arguing that because the individual shares more in common with A than B, then he is somehow voting for A – when in reality he is voting against B.
This may seem counterintuitive, for we often perceive that we have a basic, common, and fundamental set of principles that we use to make value judgments regarding who we will support. In other words, an individual might say that he is actually voting for A for various reasons found in that person, and that this individual finds more reasons to vote for A than for B between seemingly “viable” candidates. Therefore, as this individual might say, he will vote for those common reasons found in A and not necessarily against B at all. If this is actually the case, then there is no problem – so long as there is not another candidate who more perfectly reflects this individual’s personal beliefs who is not rationalized away as an “unviable” candidate (else the case of idolatry returns).
“I like almost everything A says over B,” I hear many people say, “but I disagree more with C than B, and knowing that A isn’t going to win, I am going to vote for B.” Did you catch what is going on here? Do you see the cognitive dissonance? This example demonstrates the inconsistent and rotating view that most people hold, as they alternate almost effortlessly between pro-liberty and anti-enemy approaches.”