I love politics. I love the clash of ideas and philosophies. And so, I watch politics like many people watch professional sports. If you have ever wondered who watches all those shows on C-SPAN, that would be me.

This is nothing new. When I was a Cub Scout, my pack went on a hike through a wilderness reserve on the Canadian prairie. I remember hiking through this pristine setting, while our guide enthusiastically pointed evidence of elk and beavers, and noted the presence of rare foliage. My attention, however, was focused on a television tower that poked up in the middle of a picturesque view off in the distance. I was oblivious to the nature hike while I nattered on to anyone who would listen about the political controversy surrounding the construction of this tower. I still remember the stern rebuke I received from our guide, who apparently did not appreciate political conflict like I did. Indeed, I love politics so much that I have made the study of it my career.

I also love my religion. I love being a Mormon. I love the doctrines, the history, and the peculiar social rituals of Mormonism. I love the way we bounce the babies when we bless them; I love the tingle down my spine at General Conference as the camera pans the Tabernacle Choir and all the General Authorities; I love Johnny Lingo and his eight-cow wife. Most of all, I love the quiet reassurance of the Spirit that this is the Lord's church as I am with my fellow Saints. And so today, I have chosen to speak about these two things that I love, and how they intersect.

My message is both simple and complex. We as Latter-day Saints should be deeply enmeshed within our communities--"anxiously engaged in good causes" as the Lord phrases it in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Have you ever wondered why we call our congregations wards, the same term used to denote a municipal political jurisdiction? The reason is that in Nauvoo, the boundaries of church congregations and the boundaries of one's political community were the same. When the Saints moved West, the name stuck but its origins were forgotten. It is a useful reminder to us, however, that our wards are not to build walls to cut us off from our communities, but should be conduits linking us to our communities.

In a 1998 letter the First Presidency urged "members of the Church to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs."

I suspect that we have heard this sentiment before. That's the simple part.

There is a complication, however, in encouraging political involvement among Church members. Politics is about conflict and division (remember Florida!); the gospel is about consensus and unity. How do we reconcile this contradiction? That's the complicated part.

No one should doubt that it is entirely appropriate--indeed expected--for Latter-day Saints to differ politically. To outside observers, it may seem that Mormonism is politically monolithic. But just spend a little time in the Cambridge 1st Ward, and it is clear that we are not.

Consider these historical examples.

In the 1890s--in the wake of President Wilford Woodruff's announcement of the Lord's desire for the Saints to end plural marriage--Church leaders were eager for Utah to be admitted into the Union as a state. There was still concern in Washington, however, that Utah was not in synch with the nation's political system. While there were two political parties in Utah, they were not the Republicans and Democrats. Instead, they were the People's Party and the Liberal Party. If you were a member of the Church you belonged to the former; if you were a non-member you belonged to the latter. In an attempt to demonstrate to the nation that they did not dictate church members' political views, church leaders--particularly Apostle John Henry Smith--divided church members into Democrats and Republicans. (Democrats in Utah probably wish the Brethen would do it again.) As strange as it may seem today, at that time, the Republican Party was anathema to members of the Church. It had been founded, after all, to fight slavery and polygamy (and there was only one group in the nation practicing polygamy).

In 1919, the world was recovering from what we now call the First World War, but in those times was known simply as the Great War, or the War to End All Wars. The United States was embroiled in a controversy over the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, which had been proposed as an international organization that could thwart international conflict. President Heber J. Grant publicly supported the League of Nations, as did numerous other members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the always outspoken Elder B. H. Roberts of the Presidency of the Seventy. Not all the Brethren were of one mind, though. J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay, and Joseph Fielding Smith all opposed the League. Even more interesting, so did Elder Reed Smoot, who was also a United States Senator. Let me stress that this was no trivial political issue. This was the dominant question of the time.

And what happened to those who opposed President Grant and the majority of the Twelve? Reed Smoot continued to serve in his dual roles of Apostle and Senator. J. Reuben Clark became a counselor to President Grant, and served for many years in the First Presidency. David O. McKay eventually became President of the Church, as did Joseph Fielding Smith.

Today, the brethren continue to remind us that political unanimity does not become us. In the same First Presidency letter that I quoted earlier, we read further read that members of the Church should be willing to serve in government "in the political party of their choice" and that "political candidates are asked not to imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders." In an amazingly candid interview following the release of this letter, Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy stressed that church leaders were concerned about the impression that church members were all of one mind politically. Among other things, Elder Jensen remarked that "generally there's a feeling that we've got to take political life more seriously as a church."

What makes this talk of political diversity complicated is that as Saints, we are commanded to be united. Recall the Savior's intercessory prayer, in the presence of his disciples. He was about to experience the agony of Gethsemane and the horror of Golgotha. And no doubt with the foreknowledge of those experiences hanging heavy in his mind, he prayed that his disciples might be One, even as He and the Father are One (John 17:11). In this dispensation, the Lord repeated that sentiment, when he instructed Joseph Smith,and thus all of us, that "I say unto you, be One; and if ye are not One ye are not mine." (DocCov 38:27).

Reconciling political diversity with spiritual unity is not simple. It is not simply a matter of "compartmentalizing," as the current buzzword would have it. The Mormonism I love is not to be contained within an airtight compartment of ourselves. Our faith molds our lives: what we eat, what we wear, how we entertain ourselves, the careers we choose. I would be bothered if it did not inform our political views.

Our challenge is that we seek sincerely to connect our gospel beliefs to political opinions for ourselves, while avoiding making that connection for others.

There is a lesson to be learned from the Church's political neutrality. I would like to suggest that the Church remains neutral in partisan politics for reasons that go far beyond retaining its tax-exempt status. The church must stand apart from the give and take of the political realm in order to maintain its prophetic role.

The Church's prophets must be as Nathan. When King David sinned by indulging his lust with Bathsheba and then having her husband Uriah killed, the "Lord sent Nathan unto David." (2 Samuel 12:1) Nathan was not beholden to David, and so could name his sin. Unequivocally, as he told his king that he had done evil in the Lord's sight. (2 Samuel 12:9)

I find it interesting also that in the Book of Mormon, Alma felt that he could not effectively call his people to repentance while fulfilling the role of both Chief Judge and High Priest, and so resigned his secular position to devote his full attention to his sacred calling. (Alma 4)

You see, politics is powered by compromise. And prophets can't compromise.

The Church provides us with the correct principles, but we must govern ourselves. In translating our beliefs to political positions, compromise, imperfect solutions, and half-loaves are inevitable. The danger to our unity as Saints comes when we forget what is lost in this translation. It is dangerous for any of us to assume that our personal translation applies to anyone else. We should all be humbled by the words of Abraham Lincoln. In the dark days of the Civil War, Lincoln mused--in a document he never published--that "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God." Then, Lincoln questioned whether "God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party." We would all be wise to remember those words, especially on issues that pale in importance to slavery.

Now, I must move on to the most delicate portion of my remarks. Even though the Church does not align itself with political parties or candidates, there are occasions when the institutional Church takes a public stand on a particular issue: in favor of Prohibition in the 1920s, against the ERA in the early 1970s, against the placement of the MX missile in Utah in the late 1970s, and now against same-sex marriage. How should we, as Latter-day Saints, respond?

Our fist reaction should be to recognize the grave significance of the issue. Only rarely do the Brethren speak out on a political topic. They do so not to dilute their prophetic role in the world, but to exercise it. When they do, the importance of the issue should be underscored.

The challenge remains the same: we must not allow even the Church's advocacy of a political position to divide us. Recall the example of the League of Nations. Those brethren who believed differently than the President of the Church clearly remained in the favor of the Lord.

A few years ago, there was a well-received book that claimed that we have reached the end of history. Perhaps the day will come when there will no longer be a need for worldly governments, and we will truly reach the "end of politics." Perhaps this is what it means to be of "one heart and one mind" (Moses 7:18). If so, I guess I will need to find something else to occupy myself. Maybe I will go on more nature hikes.

But maybe that's not what it means. Regardless, right here, right now we must forge bonds on what unites us as the Lord's people. Let us all agree on the ends, even if not the means. And let us all strive for the greatest End of all--Zion on this side of the veil, and eternal life on the other.

I testify that this is the Lord's Church. May we all live up to his name.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen