Sacred Cow #4: We must support LDS candidates

What is a sacred cow?  My definition is anything that is believed based only on tradition, and has little to zero basis on actual fact. These beliefs are held so strongly that the “worshiper” declares “blasphemy!” to anyone that challenges said belief.

Sacred Cow #4: We must support LDS candidates

With an increasing number of Latter-day Saints in the public spotlight in recent years, I have heard the idea more and more often that we must support LDS candidates simply because they are LDS. As one commenter said, “United we stand, divided we fall.”

Is this really sound logic? Perhaps proponents of this idea would say that Christ taught we should be “one”, and that if we “are not one, we are not His”.

Though that is true, as an Apostle of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson said:

“I believe there needs to be a unity in our land. But it must not be blind, senseless, irresponsible unity. It should not be a unity just for the sake of unity. It needs to be a unity built on sound principles.” (Stand Up For Freedom, 1966)

Would supporting someone, as a candidate for public office, just because they are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really be a “sound principle”?  Do the varied “Mormon” candidates stand for the same principles?

The Doctrine and Covenants is a great guide in helping to understand what principles to follow when supporting candidates.  The Lord said in D&C 98:10:

“Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.”

The first thing I noticed there was that being a member of the Church was not one of the criteria set forth by the Lord when choosing a candidate.  Additionally, He said that the people we should support must be honest, wise and good.  Are all of the “LDS” politicians out there honest?  Are they wise?  Are they good?

Patriarch Joseph F. Smith said that we should oppose anyone that would weaken the Constitution. (Gen Conf April 1946)

Elder John A. Widstoe warned, “The King-men, and women, are running our government. And, worst of all, we are blindly electing them, or appointing them so they can continue to destroy the things we cherish most.” (Gen Conf April 1944)

In a related article I revealed how some LDS politicians have a hard time standing up for the gospel. Are there Mormons that seek public office that have been, or are now, working to weaken the Constitution and/or destroy the things Latter-day Saints cherish most?

Let’s follow the Lords council on whom to choose to support for public office, which contains no Church membership requirements.

34 thoughts on “Sacred Cow #4: We must support LDS candidates”

  1. Well said, Ezra! In 2008 I wrote a Letter to the Editor that said the same thing regarding an LDS congressional candidate from our area. I intend to write similarly next year should Romney or Hunt be in our Presidential Preference Election in February.

    It is so critical for we voters to (i) know the issues, (ii) do our research, (iii) vet the candidates ourselves, (iv) pray about our votes, and (v) actually go out to vote.

    I appreciate your well-written and thoughtful comments. Please continue!

  2. I choose who to vote for based on experience, track record, and positions on issues important to me. If all those factors were equal, then being LDS would be a tie-breaker consideration for me in choosing where my vote goes.

    OTOH, there are LDS politicians whose stated positions on social issues are IMO completely incompatible with the teachings of the Gospel on those questions, so I could not in conscience cast my vote for that person (nor would I for any other candidate with those positions).

    1. I can agree that being LDS would be a tie-breaker for me, if it were between two candidates that truly understood and defended the principles of Liberty. Though even then I would seek the guidance of the Spirit to make a final decision.

  3. ok…i already see some bias on here…romney and ried are not the only politicians that have not known what to say when asked by media who would take every chance to take the lds religion and turn our sacred issues into mudd towels to wipe their feet with…..and if treating homosectuals with respect is ofensive one needs to look inside the gospel teachings….but huntsman jr. has out and right said that he is not that religious and made other comments as such. i am sure that there are other lds politicians that have wondered how much to say in order for the media to not” trifle with sacred things.” this is my gripe with websites like these….it is only opinion, and how opinions twist issues and statements in favor of their opinion and not reality. if you are going to have a website or an article of honesty, treat all candidates the same don’t scrutinize one while turning a blind eye to another. thank you!

        1. “With an increasing number of Latter-day Saints in the public spotlight in recent years, I have heard the idea more and more often that we must support LDS candidates simply because they are LDS. As one commenter said, “United we stand, divided we fall.” I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER FOR A LONG LONG TIME AND HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS….INFACT, I HAVE HEARD QUITE DIFFERENTLY…THAT THE CHURCH DOESN’T ENDORSE ANY CANDIDATE. and to respond to the “lie” issue…you are lieing by ommision ezra…by choosing only a few candidates as examples of your propousterous idea that somwhow these candidates are unworthy to be in public service…you and i both know that when you make a person an example of ridicule and speculation….people will remember them and not go “seek” out the other candidates. very clever you clever you! hey, beverly…way to hold ezra’s feet to the fire! not literally ezra…..i was stating an anaology! have a blessed day!

  4. I agree with some of what you have written in this article. But if a Mormon is also a good, honest man like Mitt Romney, we should view his faith as a plus.

    After all, Larry H. Miller said in his autobiography that Gordon B. Hinckley encouraged him to buy the Jazz because it could elevate the prominence of Salt Lake and generate interest in the Church. An honest LDS candidate could do the same thing.

    And yes, Romney is honest. refutes the smears. Joseph Smith was accused of being dishonest. To this day, he is still accused of it. And critics have a caseload of arguments against Joseph Smith – all smears. Just like the smears against Romney.

    As for the link claiming Romney is denying a tenet of his faith: Jesus said, “cast not your pearls before swine.” Romney is obeying Christ’s command by not wanting the doctrines of the gospel to be exploited on a political stage. That’s not denying his faith, it’s practicing it.

    Now I apologize in advance, as I do not have to continue the discussion. I hope these thoughts I’ve added are of use.

    1. Perhaps the author should again listen to Romney’s Faith in America address. And should we be judging another’s righteousness?

    2. I lost interest in Romney when I heard what he said about abortion when running for governor of Massachsettes. He is just another candidate that tries to say what he thinks his audience at the time wants to hear! Spineless and manipulative.

  5. O.k., maybe I was wrong to think this was a sincere effort from you men.

    Or maybe, somehow, it is. Maybe your smooth-looking banner at the top, complete with Church logo, and your classy photos and polite comments are not just salesmanship, and are not — what was it? “Chameleon-like”?

    By the way, reading over THAT article, a Romney hit-piece, what do we find?

    Well, basically, that Connor Boyack is a Libertarian. And judging from the maddening density of “I trust Ron Paul!” comments there and here, I almost wonder what kind of beast’s den I have stumbled into here, and where the exit is.

    To be Libertarian? That’s fine; that’s no crime. That, in itself, is no apostacy. Promoting assault weapons and marijuana and so on is, perhaps, no apostasy, even though the one kills the spirit of our gospel law, and the other offends the letter. We are not a pro-mass-killing, pro-marijuana religion. But let Libertarians pick their poisons, as prescribed by democracy and scripture.

    So it went with the rest of that article. It wasn’t a useable commentary on Romney; it was simply a list of all the many ways that Romney has not been an obedient, pure Libertarian (note: everybody already knew that). It’s wrong on too deep of a level for me to even want to respond to; but maybe saner minds exist here; who really knows?

    Let me try to run through your list:

    – Reid bashing Church leaders:
    O.k., weird for you to even throw this in, since obviously you’re actually trying to snipe Romney. I guess snipers miss sometimes.

    Until you can show that Reid was actually “bashing Church leaders” and not (as I more expect from the fact that he did so at BYU without Church reprimand) commenting on Utah legislators who were Church members, who are often misconstrued as Church leaders because they are civil leaders, then I’m going to have to call this attack on him dishonest.

    – Mitt Romney denies his own faith:
    He qualified his statement, as you know; and like very much of what he says, it was “technically” true, and would hold up in a court, although people unaccustomed to technicality disliked its nuanced delivery. So your characterization of his statement as untrue, ironically, is less true than his own statement was.

    – Romney signs an assault-weapon ban:
    Uh, who cares? Really, are high-powered guns what you think LDS “cherish most”? Maybe he’ll sign a roadside-bomb ban next. What imp has burrowed inside of you Libertarians, that you think you need assault weapons?

    Look at those words: ASSAULT. WEAPON. Are you intending to assault anybody, or do you just plan to make war on the government someday? If we ever get a Captain Moroni, he’ll execute the lot of you for sedition in wartime. Really, what is the point of having those vicious things, designed to dispatch many enemies — that is, to snuff many human lives — at once? Those are tools of outright warfare. I’m afraid I have to ask you Libertarians to justify your domestic war, if you’re going to assail the politicians who, in good faith, prevent you from arming yourselves for it.

    Second Amendment? Oh, sure. Let get nuclear arms and other WMDs too, because they’re in the Second Amendment. Honestly, that’s an insult to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is not the right to prepare to massacre one’s neighbours.

    – Romney has mixed feelings for homosexuals:
    Well, so does the Church whose logo you swiped. So does the God whose people your web-ring is trying to convert to your anarchistic political model. Actually, I was sick when I saw the Church supporting employment access for homosexuals. It would strengthen their agenda, I thought. The Church was appeasing social terrorists.

    As I ran the thought out of my heart and through my brain, however, my opinion expanded a little. If I were an employer, and a person who happened to be sexually maladjusted was still able to perform a certain job, why would I deny them? If an obese person could still perform another job, would I disallow him because of my disgust with his condition? No; neither the obese man nor the mentally ill man are sub-human; both remain children of God, made in his (fractured) image, and my concern should be for their welfare, and that of those around them. I don’t have to be outraged over “equal treatment” in general life functions, as much as I am still fully convinced that a society that loses its moral sense faces disaster, and as much as I would still hope to leave private entities their own decisions of association.

    Yes, the Church tends to take a political middle-ground, rather than veering toward extremes, as Libertarians would prefer. There’s a purpose in it. Please consider it. But as for Romney, I see him as somebody who knows how to lead people. In a democratic society — this may seem surprising — a noble leader doesn’t govern by the force of his own opinions, or with the fist of his own morals. He lets his constituents govern themselves, and him, as much as is reasonable. Otherwise, he’s not a democratic leader, but a ruler. Rulership, “king-men”, are what damages the country, if you’re really hungry for a target for your movement; not politicians who make promises to not overthrow the values of their citizens, and then adhere to those promises as well as they can.

    So, is Romney more “Libertarian” than even you guys? Maybe that’s going a little far, but do you honestly think Ron Paul would a) listen to anything you said, if you happened to have an idea outside of his ideology, or b) have any power to act beyond Congress anyway? Well, I can’t say he wouldn’t moderate over time; who can predict? Romney, though, is a leader in a truer sense: he puts himself aside and represents his people, whether they’re middle, like the Church, or right, like Republicans.

    – The next point was basically the same as the previous one.

    – The last “point”, Connor Boyack’s character assassination, again, just goes through reasons why Romney isn’t a Libertarian. “He dislikes assault weapons!” “He, like BYU, wants to make sure people can afford health care if they need it!” “He, like the Church, allowed his people to choose abortions!” “He, like the Church, dislikes marijuana!”

    Meaningless. Hardly of sufficient consequence to mention, really, those points. Maybe I’ll go rebut later, just to tap on some of the eggshells those Libertarians have erected as moral justifications. I’m sure I’ll convince no one, anyway. A man must prove his own philosophy. But, please realize that your campaign to yank the Church membership into extremism and apostacy for your own political gain will ultimately fail — if that indeed is your plan. If I’ve misjudged you, well… Please stop making it so easy for people to see you as an extremist. The suit and tie don’t cut it; it’s your ideas that look radical.

    I’ll check your “anti-Mormon” article later, since I consider it hilarious that your buddy Connor Boyack uses all the same tactics that I’ve ever seen from antis (reduced to a single word: narrowness). You seem to have a knack for it yourself. God speed you to your destination, brother.

    1. OMG ~ Incredibly well said AGKCRBS ! You made their agenda far clearer for me. But, be careful, Ezra reprimanded me for not being civil when I suggested someone read the article, because her question suggested that she had not. I didn’t realize I was not being civil

      1. OMGosh! exactly my thoughts and many other peoples thoughts that are true LDS members! well said AGKCRBS!!!! where can i vote for you!!!!

        1. Yes very well said AGKCRBS!!!! I told many members at church today they have to check out your comments…….you nailed it!

      2. My last attempt. I wasn’t suggesting you to read the article that you wrote, Ezra. I was suggesting Jules read it, unless you and Jules are one in the same. How many lds people in government do we have? Who did you base your article around? Which politicians were “highlighted”? One Reid ~ Five Romney. Reason would dictate that the article was trying to put a target on Romney. I didn’t question your testimony, Ezra,(which is pretty much what you were doing to Romney) I was focusing on your motives.You have been attacking me for crying out loud. And which camp would one be in to deceitfully persuade?

  6. A LDS politician could be a greater asset to this country because he has the full Gospel, IF he was valiant & righteous, unfortunately, I don’t believe any are even close to being valiant & righteous today.

    I agree that if a LDS politician is not living up to the commandments & his covenants then he is far worse than a non-member who doesn’t, for he has willingly turned from far greater light.

  7. after reading all the articles on this website that have to do with LDS and politics, i see not only does this website use a piece of”scripture” twisted out of context to suit the author’s agenda, they suggest you have to be as perfect as God before you can run for office…which isn’t really true. in many a conference talk and in many ensign publications the prophet and other general authorities have asked us to get involved in public service at any level that we are able. they did not say get involved only if you are perfect, which it sound like most people commenting on here think they are. so why not all of you that think any of the LDS politicians are character lacking, run for office? lets see how well you back your convictions and are able to lead a community, a state or a country when your religion in under a microscope as well as your life, every comment you make…and BTW….has anyone noticed yet that LDS is the religous minority in the US as well as the world? i think there needs to be some reality awakening on the articles here…..

  8. When you consider the fact & warning from God that it’s the disposition of nearly all men, even LDS men, to immediately exercise unrighteous dominion over those they think they have authority over, then it is only wise & smart to expect a person to be practically a prophet (Joseph Smith said we can & should all be prophets) if we are going to trust that person with our sacred rights, freedoms, families & lives.

    How foolish to go against God’s warnings & trust anyone of lesser character.

    Though it is almost impossible to find such a man today, only when we understand the need to expect such a high standard, we will ever find it.

    1. Exactly Lilia! Great use of D&C 121. A man is not necessarily worthy, or capable of leading this country – simply because he is LDS. To assess a presidential candidate merely on his religion – that happens to be the same as ours, would be foolish, naive, and utterly ridiculous. Especially when that candidate (LDS or not) has already proven that they will not publicly stand firm in what they profess to believe in, and wavers and compromises core values and integrity when the audience demands it. That to me, does not constitute leadership, but rather an attempt to win a popularity contest.

      1. As for the link claiming Romney is denying a tenet of his faith: Jesus said, “cast not your pearls before swine.” Romney is obeying Christ’s command by not wanting the doctrines of the gospel to be exploited on a political stage. That’s not denying his faith, it’s practicing it.

        1. If not “casting pearls before swine” were a valid argument in his favor, then that would mean the missionaries would not teach the very doctrine he denied/evaded. It would not be all over the Church’s official website and in every Sunday school manual. The revelations from God to modern-day prophets and Church leaders would not be the very CORE of our religion as we profess it to the world!

          1. wrong! the missionaries are set apart with the spacific extra mantel of missionary work! i’ll go get the links to where you can see times in the scupitures tht even christ himself chose to with hold his testimony….be right back!

          2. could we accuse Gordon Hinckley for his dodge (; neither Abraham and Sarah for their dodge (,5,12#2), neither Jesus for his many dodges ( It’s not wisdom or courage to throw jewels to the pigs; it’s rather a low perceptual and cognitive ability. God certainly doesn’t cast forth his mysteries for us to trample; why do you blame your fellows for not doing so?

  9. Well peoples that want to harp on the way romney answered in this one instance and accusing him of denying the tenet of his faith is just bogus….I guess you think that President Hinckley was denying his faith then when he answered the media about the revelation of the blacks getting the preisthood….did he go into detail about revelation and how he gets revelation….no…he just simply said ” i don’t know.” That is because we should not be putting our sacred testimonies out in the media for them to triffle with them. In otherwards….”don’t cast your perals before the swine.” I don’t get how on this webpage that you can point scripture out to make your point, but I see when someone doesnt agree with your point and they use a scripture to make their point you call it incorrect. So agenda making it is on this site….

  10. Thank you Ezra for your article!

    We have a responsibility to make educated and righteous judgments on those running for office. Hyrum Smith put it well when he said:

    “We engage in the election the same as in any other principle; you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin; to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs.…. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. We want a President of the United States, not a party President, but a President of the whole people…and…. Have a President who will maintain every man in his rights .” (1844, DHC-6:323)

    I find it interesting that every time Romney was asked whether he was going to run for president he would respond that he was just working to get “Republicans” in office (party president indeed).

    I find it interesting that when asked whether he would seek congressional approval to take on Iran’s nuclear facilities that he responded that he would “consult his lawyers” (so much for the constitution).

    I find much of his views to be contrary to principles of liberty, the constitution, and maintaing every man in his rights (take his stance on habeas corpus for example).

    I gave Romney a fair chance but he has consistently proven himself disloyal to the principles I believe in.

    Also, Ezra, I think another sacred cow you could address is the obsession with some LDS members who ridicule those who are “radical” and “extreme”. Many members use half-truths such as “moderation in all things” and “avoid extremes” to justify their viewpoints or to criticize others. The truth is- being moderate in all things doesn’t mean that people should compromise, or shift to the middle of every controversy that exists in society. Truth and righteousness are extreme notions to a society who love to follow Satan. Outside of the Church society views the Church’s teachings as extreme. This isn’t justification for members to shift their standards to meet halfway with the world. In every dispensation those who have preached the truth have been perceived as extremists.

  11. The message is clear to me. Don’t vote for anyone because of ones religion. We are to vote for someone that has wisdom, honest, and good in his thought and deeds. And He must befriend the constitution. So the question is, do These lds Canidates have these qualities?

    1. NO! Their very words and actions prove beyond any doubt that all three are socialists, especially Harry Reid(“The Weasel”)and therefore not worthy of our vote, PERIOD! I have no doubt whatever that every prophet from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson would have excommunicated them.

  12. With Romneys and Huntsman’s ties to the CFR/Bilderberg/Trilaterals, I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. They are RINOs and liars.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *