How do LDS doctrine and Turning Point USA differ on religious freedom and separation of church and state?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The LDS Church frames religious freedom as a legal protection it will use to defend traditional religious practices and to seek accommodation in civil law — for example, it filed a Supreme Court amicus brief arguing some LGBT protections could jeopardize religious freedom [1]. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) presents itself as a political movement that explicitly links “faith” to civic action, equipping supporters to defend “God-given rights” and to articulate the connection between faith and freedom [2]. These are overlapping commitments to “religious freedom” but they operate in different registers: institutional doctrine and litigation by the LDS Church versus partisan organizing and political advocacy by TPUSA [1] [2].
1. Institutional religion vs. political movement: different missions, similar language
The LDS Church speaks and acts as a global religious institution whose interventions in public life take the form of doctrinal statements, guidance for members, and legal filings — for instance, the church’s recent amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court framed some transgender protections under the 14th Amendment as a threat to religious freedom [1]. Turning Point USA is not a church; it is a youth-oriented conservative political organization that explicitly trains activists to “defend our God-given rights” and makes an explicit link between faith and public policy through programs that teach “Biblical Citizenship” [2]. The overlap is rhetorical — both use the language of rights and faith — but their institutional roles differ: one argues from religious doctrine and legal interest, the other organizes politically and electorally [1] [2].
2. How each frames “religious freedom” and its boundaries
The LDS Church frames religious freedom largely as a protection that secures the church’s ability to practice and to be exempted or accommodated by civil law; that framing undergirds support for policies that include “protections for religious freedom,” as the church did with the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022 (noted historically in LDS-related reporting) and is evident in court briefs defending traditional religious expressions [1] [3]. Turning Point USA frames religious freedom as a civil and constitutional mobilizing principle to be defended politically; TPUSA’s faith arm explicitly aims to “equip” citizens to expose “lies,” defend “freedom,” and advance a public agenda rooted in a particular religiously inflected understanding of rights [2]. Both actors therefore defend religious freedom, but the LDS approach is institutional and legalistic while TPUSA’s is activist and partisan [1] [2].
3. Separation of church and state: implicit differences in practice
Available sources do not present an explicit LDS doctrinal statement in these clips that repudiates separation of church and state as a concept; instead, they show the church engaging the courts to preserve religious rights [1]. TPUSA’s materials emphasize merging faith-based instruction with civic action — “Biblical Citizenship” and “Freedom Night in America” — suggesting TPUSA views faith as a legitimate engine of political life rather than strictly private spiritual practice [2]. That contrast implies differing practices: the LDS Church seeks legal protections for religious exercise, whereas TPUSA actively seeks to translate religious convictions into public policy advocacy [1] [2].
4. Audiences, tactics and political alignment
The LDS Church communicates to an international, multi-generational membership and uses legal channels, amicus briefs, and institutional statements to protect its practices [1] [4]. TPUSA targets U.S. youth and students with grassroots organizing, campus chapters, conferences (AmericaFest), and faith-focused training that blends religious language with partisan aims [5] [2]. The effect is different: LDS actions aim at institutional accommodations across jurisdictions; TPUSA’s tactics aim at mobilizing voters and shaping public debate [1] [2].
5. Points of convergence, friction, and the broader political context
There is reported overlap in values — family, free will and a Christ-centered focus — and some LDS figures have argued there is “nothing in conflict” between certain LDS priorities and conservative movements like TPUSA [6]. Yet the forms of engagement create potential friction: a church filing briefs to limit expansions of civil protections [1] and a political group pushing a partisan civic agenda [2] invite different public reactions and different legal questions. Observers worried about church-state entanglement point to initiatives like Project 2025 as examples where a religiously inflected policy agenda could concentrate power and constrain pluralistic religious freedom, a critique raised by civic groups [7].
Limitations and sourcing note: this analysis relies on reporting of recent LDS legal advocacy and TPUSA’s faith-facing materials in the provided sources; available sources do not include an exhaustive LDS doctrinal treatise on separation of church and state nor a comprehensive TPUSA policy platform, so some claims about internal doctrine or full organizational strategy are not found in current reporting [1] [2].