Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does LDS Church policy address clergy or members' involvement with partisan groups like Turning Point USA?
Executive Summary
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains an official stance of institutional political neutrality, prohibiting church endorsement of parties or candidates and advising members to avoid implying church support for personal political activities; this policy has been reiterated in official statements and the General Handbook [1] [2] [3]. Public incidents and local endorsements have raised questions about how that neutrality operates in practice, especially when local leaders or area presidencies appear linked to partisan or ideologically aligned events or groups such as Turning Point USA or allied organizations [4] [5]. The facts show a clear institutional rule, recurring public debate about its application, and recent discussion after changes in federal guidance and visible campus activity by partisan groups [6] [7].
1. How the Church Frames Neutrality — A Clear Rule, Repeated Often
The Church’s formal guidance is unambiguous: it does not endorse, promote, or oppose political parties, platforms, or candidates, and it explicitly cautions leaders and members against implying church endorsement for personal political activities, a stance reflected in both public statements and the General Handbook [1] [2]. The General Handbook and official topic pages reiterate this policy and advise members to engage civically in a way that separates personal political actions from church identity, framing neutrality as both theological and institutional practice [2] [3]. The Church’s internal documents and public letters treat neutrality as a long-standing principle, and recent handbook updates have preserved and clarified those norms even as they revise other governance sections [8]. These official sources collectively establish a consistent baseline for expected conduct by clergy and members.
2. Where Practice Meets Scrutiny — Local Actions That Spark Questions
Despite the authoritative policy, incidents at the local and regional level have prompted scrutiny about whether neutrality is always upheld, especially when area presidencies or local leaders visibly associate with civic events that carry partisan overtones. Reporting on a Utah Area Presidency endorsement of a “Why I Love America” celebration highlighted tensions between official neutrality and local endorsements, since the event involved individuals with ultraconservative ties and a controversial speaker, prompting debate about implied institutional backing [4]. These episodes do not change the written policy, but they illustrate how perception and association can blur the line between individual or local action and church endorsement, creating practical challenges for a centralized neutrality policy.
3. Partisan Groups on Campus — Why Turning Point USA Raises Distinct Concerns
Turning Point USA and affiliated projects like Blexit differ from traditional nonpartisan civic groups because they are explicitly partisan and often led by polarizing figures; that distinctiveness makes engagement by church members more consequential for the Church’s neutrality claim [5]. Coverage of Turning Point–linked campus activity, including pushback at historically Black colleges during the “Elevate to Liberate” tour, demonstrates how partisan outreach can trigger institutional reputational spillover when members or local leaders participate or appear supportive [7]. The Church’s policy does not explicitly list prohibited organizations, but the practical standard—avoiding any action that implies church endorsement—means participation in highly partisan, branded political outreach creates a significant risk of perceived institutional alignment.
4. Federal Guidance and Public Reaction — A New Flashpoint for Neutrality
Recent national developments, including media coverage of IRS guidance on pulpit political endorsements, have intensified scrutiny of how faith organizations handle political speech, and the Church publicly referenced its long-standing neutrality in responding to those developments [6]. That response underscores a dual dynamic: institutional reaffirmation of neutrality at the highest level, alongside renewed public debate over what neutrality means in an environment where legal allowances and partisan mobilization intersect. The Church’s reiteration after IRS changes is consistent with its handbook and topic guidance, but it also acknowledges the real-world pressures that make maintaining perceived neutrality more difficult.
5. What the Record Shows — Policy, Practice, and Points of Friction
The factual record shows three clear points: the Church’s official policy is consistently and repeatedly neutral [1] [2]; localized endorsements or visible associations with partisan-adjacent events create perception problems and fuel public questioning of neutrality [4]; and national shifts in law or active partisan organizing on campuses magnify those perception problems, prompting institutional restatements of policy [6] [7]. These facts leave open two practical considerations omitted from simple policy statements: how local leaders should be trained and disciplined to avoid perceived endorsements, and whether the Church will publish more specific guidelines naming types of organizational engagement it deems inconsistent with institutional neutrality.