From the beginnings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church as an institution has been intertwined with politics. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, church leaders endorsed various candidates for office, and church publications urged members to support particular candidates for public office.[1] But those days are long gone. Today the First Presidency repeatedly has declared the church’s political neutrality and declined to endorse specific candidates or political parties. At the same time, church members are urged to vote and become involved 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.”[2] Members are urged to “study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on ‘tradition’ without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).”[3]

While the church has not endorsed partisan political candidates, it has been involved in ballot measures that the First Presidency has defined as related to moral issues. The church has taken positions on ballot measures related to issues such as gambling, alcohol, medical marijuana, and same-sex marriage. As well, church members were encouraged to vote in accordance with the church’s position. The vast majority of ballot issues where the church took a position were in Utah.

Additionally, church members as individuals have run for office and served in various governmental positions. The first prominent church member to be integrally engaged in politics was Joseph Smith. His run for president in 1844 culminated a life of intersection with politics.[4] Not only did he run for president, but he also played significant roles in local elections in Missouri. He advised members on how they should vote in local and federal elections in Illinois. At the end of his life, he served as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois.[5]

Since then, other prominent Latter-day Saints have served in government, some while simultaneously acting as a general church leader. Brigham Young was Utah’s first territorial governor, appointed by President Millard Fillmore in 1850 when the Utah Territory was formed. He was church president as well. There was no separation of church and state as Young held the governorship and several apostles and other church leaders served as state leaders. Early elections were held in the same manner as church sustainings. Young’s messages to the territorial legislature mixed Latter-day Saint church doctrine and government. But Young’s term ended when he and other members waged war on the United States Army in the Utah War of 1857.[6]

Elder Reed Smoot served as a US senator while performing his duties as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But Smoot’s contribution to the political role of Latter-day Saints exceeded his long tenure in the Senate. The Smoot hearings, beginning in 1904, attracted attention to the church but also helped set the church on a course of adaptation to the expectations of the American political and social environment. This included the abandonment of Utah as a theocratic state, as it had become in the nineteenth century.[7]

The most politically influential Latter-day Saint leader in the second half of the twentieth century was Ezra Taft Benson.[8] While serving as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Benson was appointed to the cabinet of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the 1960s he was mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. He was approached by American Independent Party presidential candidate George Wallace in 1968 to be his vice presidential running mate, although President David O. McKay discouraged his candidacy and Elder Benson declined.[9] During the 1950s, Elder Benson became the most high profile Latter-day Saint and became the face of the church for many Americans.

Elder Benson’s role in US politics and government greatly influenced the church itself. This was at a time when church leaders were more politically active. He became an intellectual leader for church members in ultraconservative political activity and ideology. Many of his general conference talks before he became the president of the church addressed political themes, expressing his views on government social programs, the civil rights movement, and US foreign policy. However, once he became the president of the church, he was largely silent about politics.[10]

Other Latter-day Saints have served in significant government positions. Harry Reid (Nevada) was the Senate majority leader, and Orrin Hatch (Utah) became chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. George W. Romney and Mitt Romney served as governors of Michigan and Massachusetts respectively. Both ran for president of the United States: George Romney ran in 1968, and Mitt Romney became the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. Prominent Latter-day Saints who have run for president in addition to George and Mitt Romney include former US representative Morris Udall (Arizona), former US senator Orrin Hatch, and former governor and ambassador Jon Huntsman (Utah).

Latter-day Saints have served in other positions. Several have held posts in US presidential cabinets in addition to Ezra Taft Benson. They include Stewart Udall (Secretary of the Interior from 1961 to 1969), David M. Kennedy (Secretary of Treasury from 1969 to 1971), George W. Romney (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1969 to 1973), Terrell Bell (Secretary of Education from 1981 to 1984), and Michael O. Leavitt (Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2003 to 2005 and Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2005 to 2009). Latter-day Saints have been governors of Arizona and Idaho in addition to Utah.

Currently, Latter-day Saints serve in government offices across the United States and in various nations. There are three in the US Senate—Mitt Romney and Mike Lee (both from Utah), and Mike Crapo (Idaho)—and six in the US House (four from Utah, one from Idaho, and one from Arizona). Latter-day Saints serve as mayors, school board members, county commissioners, state legislators, and members of national legislative bodies. Many represent predominantly Latter-day Saint communities, but others have been elected to represent constituencies that include few Latter-day Saints.

However, the Latter-day Saint presence in the US Congress has declined in recent years. The departure of Harry Reid in 2017 was a major loss to the church given his status as the Senate Majority Leader. Similarly, Orrin Hatch was a fixture on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including stints as chair until his retirement in 2019. In 2013 there were eight Latter-day Saint members of Congress and six US senators. In 2003 there were ten members of Congress and five senators. Moreover, there was more regional diversity. Latter-day Saints have represented states with minuscule Latter-day Saint populations such as New Hampshire, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Yet today that representation is mainly from Utah.

Church member presence also has declined in appointments to cabinet positions. In the 1960s and 1970s, three Latter-day Saints served in presidential cabinets. The last Latter-day Saint to serve in a presidential cabinet was Mike Leavitt. The one before that was early in the Reagan administration—making only two in the past forty years, whereas there were three in the preceding twenty years.

Church leaders regularly have encouraged church members to follow the issues, vote, and participate actively in the political process. According to the church’s website, the church does “encourage its members to engage in the political process.” In a recent statement, the First Presidency urged members to be “active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaging in civic affairs.”[11] In an April 2021 general conference talk, President Dallin H. Oaks urged members everywhere to “exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.”[12]

At times, the First Presidency has urged members explicitly to run for office and serve in government positions. In 1998 the First Presidency stated, “We strongly urge men and women to be willing to serve on school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment, including involvement in the political party of their choice.”[13] But these calls have not been made more recently. Instead, more recent statements have concentrated on urging members to vote.[14]

At the same time, that involvement by Latter-day Saints has raised questions about how much church members should be part of the world of politics. Is it possible to be a disciple of Christ and engaged in political activity? Isn’t politics dirty? Doesn’t that mean a church member would have to compromise his or her principles, verbally attack others, or become part of one group or political party that attacks another group? Does the call for engagement become more difficult in an era of increased incivility and even violence? Is it possible for a Latter-day Saint to be politically engaged but avoid the partisan animosity that dominates so much of politics today? How can a Latter-day Saint live the gospel and be politically active?

These questions become particularly acute for Latter-day Saints who serve in government positions. Can Latter-day Saints live their religion and be instruments of government in democratic societies? How do they balance their religion and their duty to their constituents if their religious values and their representative roles conflict? What is the role of inspiration for a Latter-day Saint government official? Should they seek revelation for their political decisions? How does that work when they are supposed to be representing constituencies?

To understand these challenges faced by Latter-day Saint politicians and to provide insights for future generations of scholars, students, and political practitioners, oral interviews were conducted with Latter-day Saint current and former government officeholders. They ranged from city officials to members of Congress. These interviews were conducted throughout 2021 and early 2022 via video conferencing.

The topics addressed include answers to questions like these:

How does your active membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affect your position as a candidate or in public office?

Has your approach to particular issues been affected by your religious beliefs?

Has your approach to interactions with constituents and other public officials been shaped by your religious beliefs?

How much do you think your religious beliefs should affect your position in government?

Twenty-five of those interviews are included in this book. They represent a cross section of the larger group of interviewees. Some of the politicians will be familiar to Latter-day Saints because they have held high profile offices within the United States. However, others will be less well known. They are local or state politicians or come from other nations.

Church members who follow their own local, state, or national politics will find these chapters enlightening. These politicians revealed, sometimes quite poignantly, how they handle the tensions they face in government office while seeking to retain their faith and practice as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Beyond the question of challenges to faith and church standards are issues related to how they balance their religious attitudes and approaches with their secular duties to represent others—both those who are Latter-day Saints as well as those who are not. Many of the politicians who are featured in this book represent constituencies that are not predominantly Latter-day Saint. They wrestle with questions about how they “represent” when they may not agree with the view of their constituents. Some also have faced religious hostility in constituencies where the church is largely unknown or has a negative reputation as a cult.

One topic that emerged from these interviews is the role of inspiration in decision-making. Frequently, these officials must decide on legislation or policies. How do they do so? Do they seek inspiration? Should they seek inspiration, or should they seek to know the majority will and reflect it? They address the question about what the place of inspiration in a representative role is and, importantly, these officials don’t always come to the same conclusion.

The topics these politicians discuss strike at the heart of the question of whether Latter-day Saints should be involved in politics and, if so, how to do so. These politicians all encourage fellow church members to be political activists. However, they offer candid assessments of the challenges Latter-day Saints face. In fact, many of these interviews close with advice given to budding citizen activists about how best to become involved to make a difference.

The book is organized into four sections based on geography. That organization addresses the different challenges Latter-day Saint politicians face depending on where they live. The first section highlights politicians who do not live in the United States. Since church membership is sparse in most countries in the world, church members in politics face constituencies who typically know little or nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or what they do know is based on inaccuracies such as the misconception that Latter-day Saints continue to practice plural marriage. These politicians become missionaries by their presence, but they also find themselves frequently explaining to other politicians as well as their constituents what the church is and why they belong to it. They currently serve or have served in government in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Mali, and their involvement ranges from local mayors and councils to a member of the UK Parliament.

The second section includes politicians in the United States. They come from states in the West, Midwest, South, and northeastern United States, as well as Hawaii. The church is better known in these areas than in most of the rest of the world. Since the church typically has some presence, constituents in the districts of these politicians have some familiarity with the church. The presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney in 2012 enhanced awareness of the church within the United States, although not necessarily increased favorability.[15] Since church membership is minuscule, the church plays little role in the state or district politics in these areas.

The next section features US politicians who live in the western United States where church membership is more significant and constituents have greater awareness of the church. In some cases, such as parts of Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, church membership can become a voter base because members are a significant share of the electorate. However, Latter-day Saint politicians still must make broad-based appeals across religious divides. Additionally, the church may be a more influential player in politics with church leaders lobbying Latter-day Saint politicians and making statements affecting local initiatives or legislation.

The last section consists of politicians who live in Utah. These Latter-day Saints have unique challenges among Latter-day Saint politicians. As a powerful force in Utah politics, the church may lobby them on issues, and constituents may judge them on whether they agree or disagree with church positions on political issues.

Across these four sections, readers will encounter a range of political affiliations. Within the US, some are Republicans, and some are Democrats. In other nations, they represent various party affiliations ranging from liberal to conservative. The presentation of Latter-day Saint politicians from a variety of political camps is intentional. Such inclusion is designed to appeal across an array of political affiliations among church members. In addition, it conveys the message that the church is comprised of members of various political parties. As the First Presidency has repeated over a couple of decades, “principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.”[16]

A word of explanation: These chapters contain transcripts of oral interviews. Oral interviews do not read like written essays. Rather, they are texts of conversations between the interviewer and the interviewee. Interviewees were sent a set of uniform questions in advance. They were intended to help prepare the interviewee for the questions that would be asked in the interview. Some participants read and pondered the questions before the interviews, as they indicate. Others, however, may not have done so. Nevertheless, the answers given are spontaneous. As much as possible, the speaking style of the individual has been retained. The transcripts, although edited for style and length, retain the conversational environment of the interviews.

I interviewed several of the individuals whose transcripts are printed here. But I also employed a group of Brigham Young University students to assist in the interviewing of others. They include Kate Hall, Claire Taylor, Kellen Everett, Jordan Gygi, and Rebekah Leavitt-Hatch. They are introduced briefly at the beginning of each chapter. I am grateful to these students for their professionalism in handling these interviews.

Notes

[1] For a sample of the literature, see Luke Perry and Christopher Cronin, Mormons in American Politics: From Persecution to Power (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2012); David E. Campbell et al., Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014); and Randall Balmer and Jana Riess, Mormonism and American Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016). For an example of church leader endorsement of a candidate for office, see Larry R. Gerlach, “Of Church and State: Ecclesiastical Politics and the 1922 Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Election,” Utah Historical Quarterly 86 (Fall 2018): 332–49.

[2] First Presidency, “Political Neutrality and Participation,” Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, June 1, 2023, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/political-neutrality.

[3] First Presidency letter, “Political Participation, Voting, and the Political Neutrality of the Church,” June 1, 2023, https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2023/6/6/23751117/first-presidency-letter-emphasizes-participation-in-elections-reaffirms-political-neutrality.

[4] For a discussion of Joseph Smith’s presidential bid, see Timothy L. Wood, “The Prophet and the Presidency: Mormonism and Politics in Joseph Smith’s 1844 Presidential Campaign,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 93 (Summer 2000): 167–93; and Spencer W. McBride, Joseph Smith for President: The Prophet, the Assassins, and the Fight for Religious Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021).

[5] For discussions of Joseph Smith’s political activism in Ohio and Illinois, see Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1987); and Benjamin E. Park, The Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier (New York: Liveright, 2020). And for useful biographies of Joseph Smith discussing his political activities, see Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (New York: Doubleday, 1977); and Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005).

[6] For a discussion of Brigham Young’s role in the Utah War, see John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

[7] For a discussion of the Smoot hearings and their impact on the church and politics, see Kathleen Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004); and Michael Harold Paulos and Konden Smith Hansen, eds., The Reed Smoot Hearings: The Investigation of a Mormon Senator and the Transformation of an American Religion (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2022).

[8] See Matthew L. Harris, ed., Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2019).

[9] Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 319.

[10] See Matthew L. Harris, Ezra Taft Benson and the Making of the Mormon Right (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020).

[11] First Presidency, “Political Neutrality and Participation,” June 2, 2023; and “First Presidency 2016 Letter Encouraging Political Participation, Voting in US,” news release, October 5, 2016, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-2016-letter-political-participation.

[12] Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona, May 2021, 107.

[13] “First Presidency Urges Citizen Participation,” Ensign, April 1998, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/04/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-urges-citizen-participation.

[14] “First Presidency Encourages Latter-day Saints in the United States to Vote,” Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 6, 2020, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-letter-united-states-election-2020.

[15] J. B. Haws, The Mormon Image in the American Mind: Fifty Years of Public Perception (New York: Oxford, 2013), 243, 254.

[16] “First Presidency Issues Letter on Political Participation,” news release, September 22, 2008, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-issues-letter-on-political-participation; “First Presidency 2016 Letter Encouraging Political Participation, Voting in US,” October 5, 2016; “First Presidency Encourages Latter-day Saints in the United States to Vote,” October 6, 2020.